These ads are unfair and deceptive because they suggest to the consumer that the purchase of a handgun is an effective means of providing for self- and family-protection without warning the consumer that the introduction of a handgun into the home actually places the home's occupants at an increased risk of death by gun.

Petition on Deceptive Gun Advertising
Filed with FTC by Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, American Association of Suicidology, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions
[[sarcasm] Therefore, one should conclude, people at police stations and gun ranges are at extreme risk of "death by gun". I wonder why the statistics don't show that? [/sarcasm] What the anti-gun people don't want to admit is that in the few "studies" that pretend to support their position correlation does not equal causation. And that most studies do not show the correlation they want to believe exists.--Joe]

Interesting how the other side sees things:

The parallels of how conservatives turned the word "liberal" into a slur, much like gun proponents have turned "gun control" into a detestable concept, is worth considering. Staying on message and repeating it broadly is essential. It's one of the key reasons why gun extremists have been successful in blocking policies to prevent gun violence in most of the country, despite overwhelming public support for "gun control".

There is true political power when a movement can take away your opponents language and turn it against them, denigrate their legitimacy and values, and most importantly question their entire identity. Sounds familiar?

Several gun violence prevention organizations struggle with what to call themselves, and where to align their politics and strategy. What words should we use to identify ourselves: "gun safety", "gun control", "cease-fire", "anti-violence"?

There is strong debate between advocates about whether "gun control" is a losing terminology because it is sounds so negative and turns latent supporters off. But here is the dirty little secret: guns do in fact need to be "controlled".

On "gun safety" the NRA is the undisputed champ with 50,000 certified instructors that teach about 750,000 gun owners per year. How many people do all the anti-gun groups combined teach "gun safety" to? Washington Ceasefire had a student intern type that was going to be doing something along those lines but I never heard from them again after they gave a presentation I went to in about '98 or '99. So my guess is the number hovers right near zero.

In Washington State we took the steam out of Washington Ceasefire public appearances by showing up with Ceasefear (thank you Ray Carter for coming up with that name) signs and shirts (I'm a Ceasefear instructor).

The violence statistics after guns have been heavily restricted or banned put a lie to their claiming to be against violence.

The author above admits "gun control" sounds negative and turns off latent supporters but yet acknowledges that gun control is what they really want. Sort of like "White Supremacist" sounds bad but that in fact is their true objective.

I've got a name for them--they should identify themselves as Bigots for Gun Control.

You can buy your tickets on-line and are $25 each. Support the Fifty Caliber Institute's battle against the forces of evil. Entries close December 20, 2007. Each ticket is used in both drawings (a single ticket could win both prizes):

With a policy that tightly controls guns or bans them altogether, colleges and schools can ensure that the only people carrying guns are their security guards and the police. This is the way it has likely always been, and schools are safer because of it. For maximum safety and security, this is the way it should always be.

Brady Campaign
No Gun Left Behind
May 2007
[Evidence of these policies at work around the world are here and here. Some of the better known:

• Edinboro
• Stockton
• Columbine
• Virgina Tech
• Appalachian School of Law
• Pearl Mississippi
• Jonesboro
• Springfield
• Lancaster County
• Ma'alot (Israel)
• Dawson College (Montreal)
• École Polytechnique (Montreal)
• Dunblane (Scotland)

Maybe they are using a different definition of the word "ensure" than the one I am familiar with. Otherwise what they say makes no sense to me. But more likely they have mental problems and are unable to answer Just One Question.--Joe]

Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

P.J. O'Rourke
[I was reminded of this after my officemate came back from a meeting over in building 33 last week. Hillary was in town trying to buy votes with promises of "rebuilding a strong and prosperous middle class" and gave her sales pitch to people Microsoft. I wasn't aware of the visit until after my officemate came back and gave me a report or I would have attended. If nothing else just to take some pictures.--Joe]

When I read stuff like this:

The gun lobby of course prefers to punish "criminals" who commit crimes or acts of violence, but gun proponents demonstrate no interest in preventing gun violence.

I can't help but think of things like:

• We need to prevent slander by removing everyones vocal cords.
• We need to prevent rape by castrating all men.
• We need to prevent prostitution by putting chastity belts on all women.
• We need to prevent child abuse by banning children.
• We need to prevent bank robberies by taking all the money from banks.
• We need to prevent car accidents by banning all cars.
• And most importantly, we need to prevent gun violence by prosecuting government officials (violation of 18 USC 242) and others (violation of 18 USC 241) that conspire to take our guns.

I believe that the shooting sports (unlike such stylishly sanitized designer pursuits as fly fishing for the 90s) serve as the politically incorrect metaphor for that most unpopular of citizens - the Classical Man (as opposed to the Modern Man). As such, when I am asked by one who fears and loathes firearms, why anyone would find fascination in weapons, my answer is, 'For the same reason that makes you afraid of such things'.

Jack Chleva
Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 6, No. 3, March 1998
[I didn't buy my first firearm until the Clinton's were elected. I read banned books and I buy banned firearms. I push the envelope because I think it's the required response. I push back because they started the pushing.--Joe]

Tam points us to an excellent essay by Marko. Parts of his post reminded me of two quotes (previously posted here and here) from Greg Hamilton (founder and Chief Instructor at Insights):

Some police are advising people to just comply with a mugger/rapists demands in hopes of not getting hurt.  The next time someone does that I'm going up to him and start taking down his pants. When he asks what I doing I'm going to tell him I'm raping him and he should follow his own advice and submit so he doesn't get hurt.

Greg Hamilton
Self Defense Instructor
February 6, 1999

 

Think of the handgun as a behavior modifier.  If someone is threatening you, you can use the handgun to modify their behavior...

This is the universal hand signal for GO AWAY!  (Holds handgun in firing position.)

Ninety times out of a hundred it will work.  If not, then you may have to give them the universal hand signal for LIE DOWN!  (Holds handgun in firing position and repeatedly pulls trigger.)

Greg Hamilton
Self Defense Instructor
Nov. 19, 1995

From looking that this picture you might think it was my daughter Xenia that Tam was talking about. But that would be wrong.

It's a pleasant fantasy but the people offering these sort of solutions either don't understand the problem or don't want to face reality. From one of our wonderful government laboratories:

Los Alamos Lab developing liquid scanner for airport security

Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are developing a new type of scanner that can distinguish liquids blaring out a warning for bad ones, like explosives, while letting through good ones, like water.

...

They will be able to scan bottles as big as a "magnum-sized champaign bottle," Espy said.

"Apparently the whole duty-free thing is suffering, and people can't carry their liquor on airplanes anymore," Espy said. "It's been disruptive to commerce. So, that's one of the benefits of this."

Software upgrades could add new liquids to the device's detection list if any new threats arise, she said.

"The nice thing about this system is it's not tuned to any specific threats," Espy said. "As new materials of concern arise, it can be adapted to detect those."

Even after the scanner is in place we still won't be able to take liquor on airplanes--unless they are going to allow ethanol on board. In which case I need to demonstrate how to make an "explosive" out of ethanol. It would be tough to get a true detonation but in the enclosed space of an airplane cabin it just won't matter whether the speed of propagation is greater than or less than the speed of sound.

And if they stop letting people take liquid hydrocarbons on board I'll demonstrate the same sort of thing is possible with bread flour, powdered sugar, or coffee creamer. And when they ban those let them build a scanner that is sensitive to powdered human hair.

And those ideas are all taking the direct "brute force" approach. There are lots of other, much more subtle, ways to defeat airport "security". TSA is backward for A Security Theater. It's time we considered the alternatives.

My son, a freshman in high school, occasionally sends me e-mail from school, but due to a busy study schedule and extremely slow computers (it's a public school) they are rare.  Today's letter was notable.  Our complete exchange follows:

Yes, my site was down for a while (as was Ry's). Our webhosting provider had to do some unscheduled maintaince.

Civilian semiautomatic assault weapons incorporate all of the functional design features that make assault weapons so deadly. They are arguably more deadly than military versions, because most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire.

Violence Policy Center
Bullet Hoses
2003
[Who would have thought? They would rather we had fully automatic firearms rather than those deadly semi-auto ones. It would follow they would rather we owned cheap, inaccurate, handguns (aka "Saturday Night Specials"). But that would require they think logically about the issues. People with Mental Problems have difficulty doing that so don't expect it anytime soon.--Joe]

[M]ost of the time our security runs on intuition and not on explicit thought.

Bruce Schneier
October 30, 2007
Security by Letterhead
[It's the same sort of thing with gun control. Intuitively it is appealing and "common sense" that if you can reduce the availability of the tools used by criminals you will reduce crime. We are at a disadvantage because to win the argument we need to get people to explicitly think about the issue. That's seldom easy.--Joe]

If you know what you are doing you can know so much more about people than they would like you to know. For example, it appears Snuffy may have come visiting me this evening. My QOTD by him shows up in the top 10 when doing a Google search for "rev michael pfleger":

Domain Name		comcast.net ? (Network)
IP Address		67.176.196.# (Comcast Cable)
ISP		Comcast Cable
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  Illinois City  :  Chicago Lat/Long  :  41.8675, -87.6744 (Map) Distance  :  1,478 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Comcast Install 1.0)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Oct 29 2007 9:37:55 pm
Last Page View		Oct 29 2007 9:39:24 pm
Visit Length		1 minute 29 seconds
Page Views		3
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...ichael pfleger&hl=en
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		rev michael pfleger
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/10/28/QuoteOfTheDayRevMichaelPfleger.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/10/28/QuoteOfTheDayRevMichaelPfleger.aspx
Out Click		With no permit, activists rally at gun shop again http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gunshoprally_28oct28,1,3704808.story
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Oct 30 2007 12:37:55 am
Visit Number		205,510

As an aside, I left my wallet and checkbook, everything, at a rest stop near Dusty, WA on my way to the West Side.  I didn't know about it until Joe informed me as I was entering the Seattle area.  It turns out that someone from the West Side was driving to Moscow, ID where I work, picked it up, called my place of work, and hand delivered it.  Sort of renews one's faith in Mankind, that does.  That person could have easily relieved me of many thousands of dollars, to say nothing of depriving me of 100% of my ID and other creds.

No, it's not my spud gun (but it has a nearly identical scope). It's Benjamin's rifle that he used to connect with 700 yard boomers. It's a great price for a good gun.

Update: I just got a call from Ben. The rifle is sold. The scope alone was worth the asking price for everything.

...what we actually have before us is a confusion about the nature of rights. The NRA always couches its argument as a defense of our American rights as opposed to governmental control. But it is a reason why highways are engineered as well as they can be. The driver has the right to travel as safely as possible. Citizens of America should have as much of a right to safety from gun violence as possible. But they probably will not understand the issue until the talk takes up more space in our political life.

Stanley Crouch
October 29, 2007
Here's a bold proposal: Let's talk about gun control
[It's possible his first sentence is correct. As for the rest I think the chances are about 75% he is mistaken. The other 25% chance is that he really understands what a right is and is trying to confusion everyone else. Rights are not something granted or created by the government. If something is granted or created by the government then they are more properly called privileges. A right is something that preexists government. The only thing governments can do in regard to rights is protect them or infringe them. I would have made that 95% and 5% but he makes reference to "safety from gun violence". That indicates to me he might actually understand that reducing the availability of firearms doesn't reduce the total violence even if it sometimes does reduce the amount of violence committed with firearms. Further suspicion falls on him because he doesn't distinguish between criminal violence and justified and/or praiseworthy violence. The bottom line is Crouch should successfully answer Just One Question before he writes opinions about restricting the right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]

You may have known UltiMak, CCI, and Speer made their home within a few miles of my Idaho home (UltiMak is nearly within slingshot range). Just a few miles from Boomershoot in Orofino you will find Nightforce. Nearly 300 miles on down the road you will find Gemtech but still in the state of Southern Idaho (it's a north Idaho joke).

It turns out the state of Idaho is actively pursuing gun manufactures:

When it comes to guns, Idaho economic development officials are starting to see green.

The Gem State, eager to attract new jobs and industry, is positioning itself as the best possible home for the nation's 200 small arms manufacturers - companies worth a collective $2 billion per year but unwelcome in many of the states that have long been their home.

It appears that the attraction is mutual.

"Like any smart business, gun manufacturers are looking for places that facilitate low operational costs, such as business taxes, utility costs and a good place for employees to live," said Richard Schelowitz, an analyst for AFC, which monitors the firearms industry.

"But unlike some businesses, this industry is also growing weary of regulations and public perceptions that might make it more difficult - and therefore more costly - to do business."

Almost by accident, Idaho has created a business environment that gives gun makers exactly the tax and regulatory climate they like.

During the past decade, several small gun manufacturers have relocated to Idaho. More may be on the way.

In recent weeks, at least one supplier of parts for internationally known gun manufacturer Armalite visited Southern Idaho to survey potential manufacturing sites.

...

Within the past year, a small company that makes silencers for law enforcement and some federal agencies relocated from Alabama to a nondescript building near Twin Falls. When contacted for this article, the owner of the firm asked that the location of the company - even its name - remain confidential because some of its contracts are classified secret.

Idaho was an attraction, the owner said, because of lower operating costs, favorable taxes and a culture that actively embraces firearm posession as one of the most important civil rights.

...

During the early 1990s, when almost half of the states were discussing bills that would tighten gun control laws. Idaho turned the other way. The state Constitution was amended to specifically protect gun owners and manufacturers from licensing and registration.

While other states tried to follow suit, Idaho went one step further by making itself the only state where firearm sales cannot be subject to any special tax - a hedge against efforts to use of prohibitive taxes to discourage gun ownership.

On the federal level, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, a director of the National Rifle Association, introduced the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gunmakers from lawsuits filed by people injured in shootings.

Idaho didn't wait for the federal law - it became one of the first states to enact a comparable statute, in 2005.

Traditionally the nickname for Idaho has been the Gem State. I feel a great deal of pride that it may also becoming the Gun State. Let's hope the State motto, Esto Perpetua, is accurate.

Jeff reported on the end result here but I also got an email from our new friends at the apex of the Triangle of Death we met in Reno who helped make it happen:

Based on our discussion at the GBR, I thought this would be of interest to you; an area detailing where NRA's efforts, and the efforts of the bloggers, have produced some movement in the area of BATFE reform.   Please cross post this to your lists so all are aware of our efforts on this front.

Thank you,
Glen
Glen Caroline, Director
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA  22030

www.NRAILA.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Based on concerns raised by NRA, the House Appropriations Committee report on the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill (H.R. 3093) includes the following language: 

"The committee has heard reports that [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has pursued license revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations that consist largely of recordkeeping errors of various types that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime.  The Committee encourages ATF to consider lesser gradation of sanctions for recordkeeping errors."

This is a continuation of NRA's longstanding efforts to reform the BATFE, and to ensure that any penalties administered by BATFE against FFLs appropriately fit the transgression and that BATFE does not abuse its authority.  Last spring, NRA-ILA secured passage in the U.S. House of H.R. 5092 (http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=8224 <http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=8224> ), a bill that included many reforms to the process by which BATFE punishes violations of federal law and regulations (more information on bill here: http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=205 <http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=205> ). These reforms would have provided a fairer process for FFLs accused of violations.  Passage of the bill followed on the heels of House hearings (also prompted by NRA's efforts) on BATFE abuses with respect to FFL enforcement and gun show operations. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to consider the bill before adjourning for the year. 

Others in the pro-gun grassroots community have reported on this issue, including Ryan Horsley of Red's Trading Post, and numerous other bloggers.  Working together, it is our hope that we can continue our mutual efforts to reform BATFE once and for all to reduce and eliminate unjust harassment of legitimate gun dealers.

Via Phil we discover there is a species that has recently been pushed to the edge of extinction in the U.S. and Europe. It has come as a bit of a surprise to officials on both continents. They are comparing it to the Giant Panda and the house sparrow:

"When the bamboo forests that the Giant Panda lives in were cut down, the bear became threatened with extinction."

...

"We learned this lesson with the house sparrow. Twenty years ago we thought, 'why bother to get one?' since they're so common," he said.

"Next thing you know, the sparrow was on the threatened species list and they're almost impossible to find in the Netherlands."

Yet despite clear evidence it's because of the reduction in their habitat I haven't seen anything in the news or heard of any proposed legislation to protect this endangered species. I can't imagine it would be difficult for the species to recover and save it for future generations. It would require some enforcement to make sure their habitat was restored but I'm sure millions of people would accept the job of habitat inspector even at minimum wage. I'll bet some people would even pay to have a job like that.

I don't know for certain but I have to wonder if the reason for avoidance of the issue is because it's primarily women that are destroying the necessary old growth vital to the survival of the species. If so, I don't want to hear how women are more caring and how the planet would be better if women were in charge. Of course women, as is typical, will probably blame it on men anyway:

Did the ‘Brazilian’ kill the pubic louse? [section P134]

The drop in pubic lice in women was around 2000 and coincided with the introduction of new trends in pubic hair removal.

Sharp as a Marble has a link to where a prosecutor talks about the D.C. ban on firearms being a good thing because:

The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason.

This sort of thing happens all the time. I know that a certain county sheriff in Idaho broke up a car theft ring and was unable to find anything on the person they thought was the leader of the group other than the unregistered machine gun they found in his home.*

It's just another tool in their toolbox. The same thing with the income tax. The feds sent Al Capone to prison on income tax evasion rather than murder and bootlegging which were almost for certain the more appropriate charges.

I fully understand the temptation and desire for such tools. I'm sure there are many instances where law enforcement and prosecutors are completely and totally convinced the suspect is guilty but the witnesses are too scared to testify, someone messed up preserving the evidence, or some such thing. But having such tools available leads to their wrongful use. Whose perception that an individual is violent can be trusted? The potential for racism alone is reason enough to avoid giving these tools to prosecutors.

Ayn Rand nailed it:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

And don't forget Huffman's rule of firearms law:

Firearms law are so complex, victimless, and nonsensical that almost every firearms owner breaks multiple laws without knowing it. A general rule to compute the earned prison time for crimes committed is to multiply the number of years of activity in the shooting sports by five.

A landlord of mine once had a girlfriend that was an interning law student at a Federal prosecutor's office. I mentioned something about the changes in Federal law regarding explosives and how previously manufacture and use within the borders of a single state were outside the domain of the Feds but SEA claimed to change that. I thought that as a law student she would recognize the interstate commerce clause was the basis for the Feds being able to even talk about the regulation of explosives. Intrastate activity is supposedly beyond the reach of the Feds. But she was almost giddy about the changes because the new law would "invalidate tons of legal precedent". As a future Federal prosecutor she had just been given a whole bunch of new tools and she was eager to use them. I dropped the subject.

I regard this abuse of power as one of the most obvious symptoms of a deficiency in our constitution. There is no explicit means for punishment of members of our government who pass or enforce laws that violate the constitution. There is a law that says they can't legally do that in certain cases, 18 USC 242, but who enforces it? Federal prosecutors. But you can't expect them to enforce it upon themselves. It just isn't going to happen. There needs to be a much more general provision enforceable by some other means. The "Second Amendment reset" is just too drastic for the situation at hand.

* The Feds refused to prosecute. I suspect this decision may have been influenced by some previous "history" between Idaho and the Feds. This wasn't too long after Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were found not-guilty of nearly all the charges against them and there were some instances where several Idaho counties were threatening and/or actually were (Lon Horichi is just one example) prosecuting some Federal employees of various types.

We are not paying money to gather in a peaceful assembly. If they don't want us there, they should vote Riverdale gun-free.

Rev. Michael Pfleger
October 27, 2007
With no permit, activists rally at gun shop again
[How ironic. Invoking the First Amendment while trying to destroy the Second Amendment. As a side note--the articles states the criminal trespass charges against Pfleger and Jackson from last June were dropped this month.--Joe]

Uncle asks, "But, you know, who can’t watch chicks in bikinis firing belt fed machine guns?"

Well, if you must ask... most women probably find that very offensive.

I find it (yeah, I know, I'm weird) a little annoying. Guns and nearly naked women just don't go together for me. These women don't really know what they are doing with the guns. They get so few rounds on target and so many in the dirt that I find it irritating.

I could go for some of the groupies (there are some hints of this phenomena at times) at Boomershoot to show their appreciation after the show but not as a part of it. For some reason the simultaneous combination of sex and guns just leaves me a little bit cold.

That doesn't mean I don't realize there is a fairly large segment of the male (and some female) population that finds the combination very stimulating. I just don't get it on the emotional level and I fear it hurts our cause with the majority of women.

I tried to post this as a comment to Kevin's post but it was automatically rejected with the explanation of having too many links. No matter, I was going to make a post out of it anyway. I'll provide a link to here from Kevin's comment section. I won't object to comments here but please consider whether the comment really should go on Kevin's blog.

Bilgeman wrote:

I ask you...what would you say of the manufacturers of crematoria, the producers of Zyklon-B, and the merchants of barbed wire who actively sought, and jealously protected, their government contracts with the 3^rd Reich?

To a lesser degree businesses that sell to many government entities in the U.S. today are no different. But Barrett rifles and others have refused to do business with certain government organizations because of the laws that infringe on the civil rights of the people.

What I would say to those businesses is that I understand their reluctance to refuse to participate (in part, I was fired from my job because of this). I also read Hitler's Willing Executioners and understand how an entire culture can go "sour" and make it difficult for people/business to stand up to the thugs in power. How many individuals/businesses refuse to sell products that aid in the war on some drugs? Or bite their tongue even though they know the war on people that smoke cigarettes is morally wrong but personally convenient? It’s very difficult to draw a line and say, “This is the limit, I will tolerate this, and beyond that I will cease to be a part of it or even actively fight it.” And it is very, very difficult to find and adhere to the line drawn beyond which you will disobey the law and endure the threat of government violence against you and/or your family. It is because of this that I wrote my essay on Civil Disobedience (see also this effort of mine).

I wrote my essay before I became a NRA certified firearms instructor in personal protection and was only a little surprised we were told to teach the importance of setting a limit and knowing what action you will take if that limit is crossed. This “drawing of the line in the sand” is very, very important. One instructor put it to me this way, “It’s far more important to know when to draw than how fast you can draw.” This lesson is applicable to far more things that most people know. Understanding this could eliminate all the “frog in the boiling water” scenarios. Governments grow out of control because people haven’t set a limit and said, “If these conditions are violated then the system has crashed and it’s time to press the reset button.” In a somewhat obscure way our Bill of Rights is such a line in the sand but the critical second portion of the rule wasn't put in place. That second portion is what action you will take if that limit is crossed. If I could go back in time to the time of the writing of our constitution and influence it's development I would insist provisions for this second portion was just as critical as enumerated powers and guarantees of rights.

This lesson is something I believe should be taught in our schools. And it’s not just because of the personal protection and “out of control government” issues. "Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them” is another way to say the same thing and perhaps enables people to see far more applications of this vital tool. The more widespread the application of this lesson the more likely it will be applied in the more difficult situations.

Draw your lines in the sand early when you have the time and a cool head. Your life or even the lives of millions may depend on it.

The odds of my politicians destroying me depend precisely on whether or not my cabinet is stuffed with guns. It is very hard to impose their will on me by force when I have the means to resist by the same means. Every single totalitarian government and dictator throughout history without exception has only managed to acquire and hold their power by first disarming their subjects. Every. Single. One.

The Armed Canadian
October 23, 2007
#6 - On "Assault Weapons" and Control
[Other than a reference to a U.S. gun control law a link to one of my posts was the only other reference. I am honored--this post, while long, is profound. This blog is so new that the link to my blog didn't show up on my radar. Ry sent me the link and I just now got around to reading the whole post. Thanks Ry and Armed Canadian.--Joe]