The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part 2 of 2 Parts

Today is Thanksgiving, and we, as citizens of these United States of America, have a lot for which to be thankful. First and foremost are our protections under our Constitution. With that in mind, let's pursue Part 2 of my topic. (This blog is not meant as the "be all and end all" for firearms. Rather, it is an introduction covering only the basics.)

We've established that you have a "right to keep and bear arms", and that you may have determined you need to exercise that right by legally purchasing a firearm for home defense. Again, there are significant variations in state laws regarding such purchases, and the storage and use of a firearm, so be familiar with the laws of your state prior to buying a gun.

Let's begin by exploring the question "How much gun do I really need?" There are so many to choose from - long guns, handguns, shotguns, rifles, revolvers, auto-loaders, single-shot, high capacity - sometimes just the thought of selecting can be mind-boggling. As far as caliber goes, currently there's everything from a .22 caliber to a .50 caliber, and pricing runs the gamut from dirt cheap to ridiculously expensive (the main thing to keep in mind is to always buy the best you can afford). As with most things you buy, you pretty much "get what you pay for". Dirt cheap. more often than not, is unreliable and frequently may be downright dangerous. Quality can be had - inexpensively - if you know how to shop.

For a home defense long gun, I would recommend the Mossberg 500 in 12 gauge in any of its variations. They are reasonably priced at $250-$350 - if you shop around, and are as reliable as a Remington 870 costing $330-$1,100. You may feel that the recoil generated by a 12ga is too much to handle though, so don't be afraid to consider a 20gauge. One of the most intimidating sounds in a darkened house, is the unnerving sound of a pump action shotgun having the slide "racked", and an intruder can't tell the difference between the sound of a 12ga or a 20gauge slide being activated. Personally, I have a Mossberg "riot gun" that's 35 years old, and still works like the day it was new. Quality does not have to bankrupt you, and a short-barreled shotgun is excellent in a confined space, such as the hallways and rooms of a "normal" household structure. The main advantage of a shotgun over a firearm using a metallic cartridge and a solid projectile, is the dispersal of the pellet payload, and a minimal chance of over-penetration. One doesn't have to be an expert marksman to hit a target within 30 feet. A carbine length rifle also handles fairly well indoors, but the condition of over-penetration still exists. The "Glaser Safety Slug" offers a solution to over-penetration. This excellent round uses a copper jacket and it is filled with a compressed load of either #12 or # 6 lead shot. It is then capped with a round polymer ball that enhances feeding and reloading. It is now available in four rifle calibers from .223 to 30-06. The Glaser Safety Slug is recommended for the urban dweller and anyone who is concerned with over penetration.

The handgun for home defense has the advantage of being the easiest to handle in a confined space, but requires more practice and skill to use effectively than does a shotgun. A handgun also shares the rifle's potential for over-penetration. However, Glaser has handgun calibers available from .25 auto to 45 Colt. Handguns are available in calibers from .22 to .50, and the recoil increases with each upward step. Personally, I feel that any handgun of less than .38 Special caliber is "iffy", and I do not recommend the .25 auto or the .32 caliber handguns simply because they are generally considered ineffective. Although I own a few 1911's in .45acp and a couple of .357 magnums, my personal preference is for what I refer to as the "mid-class" handguns - chambered for the .38 Special and the extremely popular 9mm. The lighter recoil of the mid-class rounds facilitates quicker recovery on-target, and placement of a slightly quicker, more accurate second shot if needed.
Felt recoil is a combination of several factors - the caliber and weight of the handgun, the weight of the projectile, the amount of powder in the case, etc. Since most people buy their ammunition "off the shelf", as opposed to loading their own, they have no control over the amount or type of powder in their ammo. They do, however, have control over three factors: the caliber and weight of the handgun they choose, and the weight of the bullet in the ammo they choose. Generally speaking, the larger the caliber the greater the felt recoil; the lighter the gun weight the greater the felt recoil; the heavier the bullet, the greater the felt recoil. And, in the case of a firearm, the word "magnum" means even bigger felt recoil. The best handgun for home defense is one with which you can consistently hit a target within 30 feet. Some people find the recoil of even a mid-class round to be intimidating, while others can easily deal with the recoil of a .44 magnum. If you believe you would be bothered by the perceived recoil of a .40 caliber (or larger) handgun, then buy in the .38 Special/9mm class, and get something with a 3"-4" barrel length (a bit more weight, a bit less recoil than those cute little snub-nose revolvers).
Who makes the best guns? Ask that question in a room full of gun enthusiasts and you will start a never-ending discussion. We all have our personal likes and dislikes for rifles, shotguns and handguns. In sporting rifles and shotguns, the most popular names are Mossberg, Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Savage and Marlin in no particular order. In tactical rifles and shotguns, you have the same popular names (and throw in Kel-Tec, who is coming on strong) - plus 100 or so others, most of whom are "custom builders").
The list of leaders in handgun manufacturing is a bit longer and introduces some other names. Glock, Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, SIG, CZ, Heckler & Koch, Taurus, Kahr and on and on. A handgun must fit your hand properly! If it doesn't feel comfortable in your hand, or if it doesn't point naturally, you may as well be holding a brick. A relatively recent innovation in handgun design is the interchangeable grip/back-strap, which can resolve fitment problems for almost anybody, no matter what size your hand.
I own 15 handguns from 8 different manufacturers, and enjoy them all, but... I have a personal preference for the Glock pistols. They fit my hand, they point very well, they consistently hit where they are pointed, and Glock pistols are virtually indestructible: dropped from an airplane at 500ft into a field recovered and fired; run over by a truck picked up and fired; buried "naked" in soil for 2 years, dug up, hosed off and fired; and 1,000 rounds put through one in 14 minutes and it never failed to fire. G L O C K - that's how I spell dependability.
But, the bottom line is - get what works for you. Fit, function, and affordability... those are the key considerations.

The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part I of 2 Parts

And now for something completely different...

Most Americans with any interest in their Constitutional rights, are at least familiar with the wording of Amendment II. It's pretty straight-forward: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Today there are those who would argue the semantics of the Second Amendment, while ignoring its intent. How does one define a "well regulated militia"? That depends upon where one looks for their definition of the word "militia" (the "well regulated" part could easily be construed as a reference to the inclusion of prunes in their diet)...

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Definition of MILITIA

1

a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

However, current federal law defines "militia" thusly:

USC TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The government therefore basically defines the "militia" (after cutting through and eliminating all the political smoke) as being composed of: "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." and blah, blah, blah. Paragraph 311(b)(2) essentially says the "unorganized militia" are those able-bodied males, ages 17-45 whose only other qualification is that they are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Ageism aside, today that's roughly 61 million males that qualify as "militia"!

The Japanese had no real desire to invade the United States during WWII. Why? Because, as Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II, said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." His statement was an acknowledgment that because of the Second Amendment the American people are well-armed, and we have significant experience in the use of firearms. The Second Amendment is also the only one that insures we retain all the other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights! But, enough about the Constitution. Just believe, as I do... that, if the Second is modified or repealed, all the others will be in constant jeopardy. Here's what the U.N. thinks about our "right to keep and bear arms":

"As you enter the Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel."

The Second Amendment fits hand-in-glove with the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now you have not only "the right to keep and bear arms", but also "the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects", but the Fourth is primarily a prohibition of government searches and seizures. Logically extending that prohibition, if the government can't do it then neither can some crack-head burglar! So, what do you do to protect yourself and your family? To insure a level playing field, and perhaps gain a lifesaving advantage, you may buy a gun. But, before you do that, there are a few questions you need to answer:

1. Do I have the mindset necessary to actually use a gun, in an action that - quite possibly - could result in my taking the life of another human being? (If you cannot truthfully answer Yes to this question, do not buy a gun. Go to your local Big 5 sporting goods store and buy a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.)

2. If I must use a gun in the protection of myself and/or my family or others, am I willing to face the consequences of my actions? (Once again, Yes is the only acceptable answer to this question. There probably will be some consequences. How many, and exactly what those consequences may be will vary from state to state. Expect, as a minimum, some intensive questioning from one of your local law enforcement agencies. At the other end of the "scales of justice", expect long-term housing to be provided for you by the state, and possibly an early death by execution.) The laws vary from state to state as to what constitutes "appropriate and necessary use of deadly force". Be very familiar with the laws of your state of residence!

If you answered No to either of the above questions, you may stop reading now and go hug Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. The rest of you may now move on to a few practical questions.

What type of gun do I need? There are several types of guns from which to select the one that's right for your intended purpose. The fall into two general categories: "long guns" - which are rifles and shotguns, and "handguns" - pistols and revolvers. What you need is entirely up to you, but it must be a gun with which you are comfortable, and one with which you can repeatedly hit your intended target. Here are what I consider to be the main characteristics of firearms...

For use as in-home defense, either a long gun or a handgun will do the job. There are also advantages and disadvantages to all of them. Rifles and shotguns weigh considerably more than most handguns, and may prove to be unwieldy in confined spaces such as hallways. Generally speaking, rifles are also more powerful than most handguns, and over-penetration may result. That means that, even if you hit your intended target, the projectile may pass through and strike someone not involved in the burglary/robbery/home-invasion. If you miss your target, the projectile will, in all probability, penetrate one or more walls, increasing the possibility of striking an innocent bystander. For home defense maneuverability, a carbine-length barrel (generally accepted as a rifle barrel under 20" in length) will improve maneuverability. However, caliber-for-caliber the potential for over-penetration remains the same. Long-barreled shotguns present the same problem for maneuverability in tight areas, but less possibility for over penetration. A short-barreled shotgun (also known as a "riot gun"), loaded with almost any upland bird shot would be a good choice for in-home defensive use. The unnerving sound of a shotgun chambering a round is almost universally recognized, and may make an intruder decide upon an immediate departure from your premises. Using pellet-filled shells, the need for precise accuracy is eliminated, and due to their dispersion pattern the potential for "collateral damage" is minimal. Most shotguns produce significant recoil, which some people find disconcerting, if not injurious.

Handguns for in-home defense have the advantage of high maneuverability, and work very well in confined spaces. They do, however, present an entirely different set of problems. There are two divisions of handguns; the auto-loading pistol (popularly, but incorrectly called "automatic pistols"), and the revolver. Auto-loaders have the advantage of increased ammunition capacity per load. Generally, an auto holds from 7-19 rounds of ammunition per magazine, whereas most revolvers hold 5-6 rounds of ammunition per cylinder load. Handguns take significantly more practice in order to gain marksman-like proficiency, than do a rifle or shotgun. Auto-loaders may be almost impossible for people with weaker hands to actuate the slide, which is necessary to make the pistol ready to fire. Many women, and men with arthritis (or even relatively minor hand injuries), find this to be true - after they have purchased an auto-loading pistol. Auto-loaders also have somewhat of a reputation for being less reliable than revolvers, although if properly maintained today's quality auto-loaders are extremely reliable. On the other hand, revolvers, if properly maintained, have fewer moving parts to fail, and are at least theoretically more reliable.

Think about these things while I work on Part Two - How Much Gun Do I Really Need?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT - NEAR AND DEAR!

Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The Second Amendment is near and dear to my heart. I fired my first rifle 60 years ago, under the supervision of my grandfather and an uncle, and bought my first pistol at the age of 17. Since that time I have owned, at one time or another, in excess of 75 assorted rifles and pistols - none of which have ever been used in the commission of a crime. As much enjoyment as I have gotten from the shooting sports, and, being as enthusiastic a supporter of "The Second" as I am, I have dedicated relatively little space in my blog to that powerful portion of the most powerful document on the planet - our Constitution. Nine entries, in which The Second was mentioned in some fashion, out of two hundred seventy postings. I prefer not to work it to death, and try not to be a one-issue blog, but... if I were only allowed a single issue I might well have chosen The Second.

Let's take it apart for a minute. What qualifies as "A militia"? According to the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia a militia is a - "Military organization of citizens with limited military training who are available for emergency service, usually for local defense."
Black's Law Dictionary identifies a militia as - "A group of private citizens who train for military duty to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government."
The U.S. History Encyclopedia says a militia is - "a form of citizen-based defense that shaped early American history and created an American tradition of citizen soldiery." Further on the article states, "The militia emerged from the Revolution with its military reputation mixed but its symbolic importance enhanced immeasurably. Americans no longer viewed the militia solely as a practical necessity; instead, republican thought imbued the militia with an ideological role as a guarantor of liberty, particularly in opposition to standing armies."
A militia, therefore, is essentially an armed citizenry, ready to defend itself (and in our case our Constitution) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The role of the "well regulated Militia" has, for the most part, been assigned to our National Guard by the government. But, by virtue of that government assignment and recognition, they no longer meet the technical definition of a "militia". Now that we're all on the same page, let us continue...

The militia was considered as "being necessary to the security of a free State". The individual State units of the National Guard could at least partially fill that role... IF THEY WERE IN THE UNITED STATES! But, even then, their numbers alone would be insufficient to successfully defend our country from an attack. With slightly less than 20,000 miles of combined coastline and north-south land boundaries, and approximately 400,000 combined Army and Air Guard personnel, that would be a dispersal of 20 per mile, or one Guardsman every 264 feet, with zero depth. (The Japanese chose not to invade the United States during WWII because they envisioned "there is a gun behind every blade of grass.")

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you are a native born, English-speaking American, you should have no difficulty understanding that phrase. It's really quite straightforward. We the People, have a God-given right to keep and bear arms so that we may maintain our other Constitutional rights and freedoms. The government cannot and does not give rights - the government can only grant permission. As human beings we are born with rights.

Who wishes to deny us the right defined by The Second? Most of the world - some from envy of that freedom, others from unfounded fear, and yet others who wish to see us subjugated as they are. The largest organized external attack on our Constitution comes from the United Nations. I invite you to watch this video that I borrowed from the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute (see link in left-hand column). It is enlightening...

The UN has been trying to negotiate an arms control treaty for decades, but past US administrations have never supported such flagrant attempts by the UN to interfere with our sovereignty or strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

However, the CURRENT administration has reversed the long standing position of the US and has publicly stated that it supports an arms control treaty.

Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty, the Senate would have to ratify it before it could become the law of the land. The Senate has the power to nullify it by refusing to ratify the treaty.

Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.

The Second protects the other 26 Amendments... and all the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.

AP Article :"Oklahoma Druggist Arrested For Killing Holdup Man"

"OKLAHOMA CITY – Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away." Okay - so far, so good. Facing two armed robbers, Ersland defended his life, and the lives of fellow employees and customers, as he has every right to do. This is the serious down side of choosing a criminal lifestyle - you point a deadly weapon at somebody and they're just likely to kill you where you stand. The article continues...

"Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor." Oooops! Now we've violated the basic rule of self defense - the threat had already been neutralized (according to the report). Also, five more rounds seems a bit excessive... unless the robber was moving as if to retrieve his weapon (which we don't know). We also have the physical issue of adrenaline still flooding through Ersland's body after the experience, and possible PTSD (Ersland is a disabled Gulf War Veteran), or a "combat flashback". Nobody knows what was going on inside Ersland's head but Ersland. The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head.

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

The AP goes on to say, "Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail thanks to an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters and become the darling of conservative talk radio."

"Many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved." I haven't seen this video, but I tend to agree with those folks. When a person puts on a ski mask and pulls out a pistol, then threatens somebody with it, the intended victim can reasonably assume you are capable of (and perhaps intent upon) taking somebody's life. You cannot tell a teenager from an adult when they have hidden their face under a mask - besides, a teenager with a gun can kill you just as dead as a 40 year old with a gun! By virtue of threatening to take the life of an innocent person - implied when brandishing a firearm - the criminal puts his own life in a position for potential forfeiture. Even a teenager should understand that!

Unfortunately for Ersland, the robbers weren't just teenagers... they were black teenagers. Okalhoma City should be getting a visit from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton any day now, claiming that Ersland shot the kid only because he was black - certainly not because he presented a lethal threat. Everybody knows that no self-respecting white man would ever shoot a white robber that was pointing a gun at him!

I suppose I could be wrong about all this, but, based on the information available at this time, I seriously doubt it. (If I was on the Ok City Grand Jury, I wouldn't even vote to indict Ersland, much less put him through a criminal trial.)

FLASH!! 9th Circuit Court Extends Second Amendment Protections

The following was copied from The Supreme Court of the United States Blog, reporting on this historic ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court and is brought to you as a public service - in case you hadn't heard:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Constitution’s protection of an individual right to have guns for personal use restricts the powers of state and local government as much as it does those of the federal government, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled Monday. The opinion by the three-judge panel can be found here. This is the first ruling by a federal appeals court to extend the Second Amendment to the state and local level. Several cases on the same issue are now awaiting a ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court.

Ruling on an issue that is certain to reach the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court concluded “that the right to keep and bear arms” as a personal right has become a part of the Constitution as it applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

That right, it said, “is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’ Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’

“Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

But, following the lead of the Supreme Court’s decision last June in District of Columbia v. Heller, finding a personal right in the Second Amendment for the first time, the Circuit Court concluded that the right as interpreted by the Justices is limited to “armed self-defense” in the home.

Thus, the Circuit Court refused to strike down an Alameda County ordinance that makes it a crime to bring onto county property a gun or ammunition, or to possess them on that property. A county supervisor who sponsored the ordinance cited “a rash of gun violence” in an apparent reference to the school shootings in the late 1990s, including the one at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo.

The Alameda ordinance, the Circuit Court said, does not involve the kind of armed self-defense that the Supreme Court had in mind in Heller. “It regulates gun possession in public places that are County property,” it concluded.

The ordinance had been challenged by Russell and Sallie Nordye, who operate a business that promotes gun shows in California. They contended that the Alameda County ordinance burdens their Second Amendment right because it makes it more difficult to buy guns.

Before the gun ordinance was adopted, gun shows had been staged at the Alameda County fairgrounds, drawing up to 4,000 people. The Nordykes said that some county officials wanted to drive gunshows out of the county, and that is what led to the ordinance’s enactment.

The Circuit Court, however, said the ordinance “does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller analyzed it. The ordinance falls on the lawful side of the division, familiar from other areas of substantive due process doctrine, between unconstitutional interference with individual rights and permissible government nonfacilitation of their exercise.”

Finally, it said, banning guns from municipal property “fits within the exception from the Second Amendment for ’sensitive places’ that Heller recognized,” the Circuit Court said.

The Court also rejected a First Amendment challenge to the ordinance, based on the Nordykes’ claim that the local law was designed to silence those who promote gun rights. “The language of the ordinance,” the Court said, “suggests that gun violence, not gun culture, motivated its passage.”

It also rejected a claim of discriminatory application of the law, because of some exceptions the county wrote into its ordinance.

The ruling was written by Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and joined by Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon. Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould joined the opinion, but also wrote separately to discuss the doctrine of incorporating rights selectively to apply to state and local government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no way the 9th CC is wrong! Without the Second Amendment ALL OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY!

"States Rights" Is What Keeps America Free... Along with the 2nd Amendment

At last count, 30 states had reminded the Federal Government that the feds could not dictate to them, and that they were sovereign powers within the united structure. The only thing better than that would be if all 50 states perform that same act of sovereignty. Now, don't make the mistake some people have and confuse a declaration of sovereignty with secession. There has been no act of secession by any state .... yet.

What are "States Rights"? The first ten amendments to the Constitution are collectively known as "The Bill of Rights", and the Tenth Amendment proclaims: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As you can see, although it doesn't jump right out at you, that short sentence says that unless it is specified in the constitution as a Federal power, that power, by default, belongs to the States, or the people! Of course, the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written upon if we, the people, don't insist on its application in all government affairs. If we do not "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" we deserve to wear the yoke and chains of socialist enslavement!

We have a definite and obvious threat to all our founding documents in Washington D.C. - a left-wing, socialist administration (which was put there primarily by a complacent "silent majority"), coupled with a left-leaning, socialist-inclined Congress. Disaster is imminent when there are no checks and balances between the legislative and the executive branches of Government.

The President's Cabinet consists primarily of tax dodgers, inexperienced incompetents heading critical Federal functions (CIA, Treasury, Homeland Security, etc.) and those who embrace the "One World" fantasy. As much as you may like to believe in the "One World" concept, it is nothing more than a fantasy. We are not all brothers and sisters riding this big blue marble. There are many millions of people around the world who either envy, resent, or simply hate the United States for reasons frequently beyond our understanding. Reasons - real or imagined - which reinforce their desire to bring about our failure and/or demise as a Democratic Republic. Remember that our individual reality is based on how we personally interpret what we see going on in our world. Reality has nothing to do with what the person on either side of us, or the person standing across the street from us sees - reality and truth are individual concepts!

As a "Conservative-Traditionalist" this is the basis of my reality:

1. The United States has accomplished more in 233 years than any other culture has in 2,000+ years, yet our left-wing Government wants us to emulate the great left-wing socialist countries of Europe. (Yeah... that makes sense, considering how successful they've been! Without our assistance, Europe would have been a territory of Germanys Third Reich for the past 60+ years! And their socialized health care works well too... for those who live long enough to actually get some medical care.)

2. Our foundational documents - the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America - and the ideals and well thought out philosophies contained therein, are responsible for the aforementioned success, and have stood us in good stead since their creation. (I believe in the axiom, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and that protecting those ideals and philosophies is a personal responsibility, and one well-worth fulfilling.)

3. I see no need, nor any Constitutional authority for any Government - Federal or State - to create "hate crimes". Relatively few crimes are committed out of a sense of love, or even mild fondness. The crime is in the act, not in the motivation or thought behind it. All true "crimes" are already covered by a myriad of Federal and State laws, and local ordinances. Why would "hate crimes" not fall under the existing category of "crimes of passion":

"Usage: When any feeling or emotion completely masters the mind, we call it a passion; as, a passion for music, dress, etc.; especially is anger (when thus extreme) called passion. The mind, in such cases, is considered as having lost its self-control, and become the passive instrument of the feeling in question." Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Hatred and rage are simply anger in extremis - at the far negative end of the "love-hate continuum".

4. The use of the word "homophobe". Along the same line as "hate crimes" homophobe is a misnomer in most instances. I would suggest that word be replaced by homocontemnor, one who finds homosexual behavior to be contemptible or viewed with great disdain. Although homosexual behavior was once tolerated in some ancient societies, it is generally regarded as sexually deviant behavior in the American culture.

5. Our Government, in its passage of legislation, rarely reflects the expressed will of "we the people", but, rather, the expressed will of corporations and other moneyed interests. Essentially, we have "the best government that money can buy." We need to resurrect our Constitution, and replace our legislators in a manner that best serves the people of our once great nation. This is supposedly taken care of at the voting booth... but that only happens when every eligible voter actually votes! We are at that juncture in history where personal and collective indecisiveness and complacency will destroy us from within our own borders.

6. Tax abuse by our Government is rampant. We can tell there are few Jews in our Government by the proliferation of PORK! "Pork" another euphemism for the euphemistic "earmarks" that Barack Obama pledged to eliminate if he was elected as our President. "Earmarks" are nothing less than uncontrolled Government waste of our tax dollars. Yet one of his first actions was to rubber stamp an Omnibus Spending Bill with around 9,000 various cuts of swine in it! Is it the will of the people that failed banks and corporations be "bailed out" with our tax dollars? No, it's not - 74% of the people are against such actions, but our Government - in its infinite wisdom - has chosen to ignore what we the people want.

7. As for the Second Amendment, it pretty much speaks for itself... and in plain English. An armed people are a free people - citizens - an unarmed people are more properly called "subjects".

I could go on for a very long time about the insufficiencies of our current government, and I may do that in a future posting, but, for now this seems sufficient.

There is a possibility that I could be completely wrong about this... but I'm not an illegal alien who doesn't read and comprehend the English language. I was born and raised in this country, and educated - as opposed to indoctrinated - in that language. I consider myself fortunate to have received my education while the youth of our country were still being taught HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think... as they are today.

Guns, Guts and ... OH MY GOD! He got elected!

Well, the election is over, and so are many of the things I had come to love as a cultural traditionalist. This is not a 'wait and see' condition, it is a given if NObama runs true to his demonstrated character. There will be a left-wing push for a Constitutional Amendment to - or revocation of - the Second Amendment, in spite of the Supreme Court's recent ruling validating the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

The reaction to this possibility has been astounding! In preparation for the expected left-wing modification/elimination of our rights, gun sales have skyrocketed, applications for Concealed Firearms Permits have doubled in some areas of the country, and the availability of ammunition has become sparse in many areas across the country.

Personally, I purchased an extra 200 rounds of 5.56mm ammuntion today, and ordered three 30-round magazines for my Mini-14. This brings me up to 500 rounds and 8 magazines. Then there's my 500 rounds of .45acp, and 10 magazines, and the additional 750 rounds of 9mm, and 8 magazines - altogether about ½ of what I will eventually have on hand. Plus there's about 600 rounds of .22 long rifle ammunition. Oh - and I almost forgot! I also have 150 rounds of 12ga shotgun shells, mixed 00-buckshot and slugs. I'll need to increase that level to 300.

And now, some of you are surely wondering, "What in the hell is this guy going to do with all that ammunition?" Nothing spectacular. I will - undoubtedly - shoot some of it in the near future:
a. to insure that my guns are functioning properly, and
b. to insure that I can consistently hit whatever I may have to aim at in the distant future.

I will neither create another Ruby Ridge, nor will I start my own 'branch' of the Branch Davidians. Homey don't play that. What Homey do play is the oath that he has taken several times during his life ... I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. There's more, but as I see it, the remainder doesn't apply to me, since I am no longer a member of our active duty military, or the National Guard or Reserves - but I am, and always have been, an American citizen. And this is one citizen who takes that oath seriously! Have you noticed that in countries where private gun ownership is severely restricted - or prohibited - that their people are seldom citizens ... but, rather, SUBJECTS?

I could be wrong ....................................but I'm NOT!

While I'm On The Subject of The Constitution ...

and the United States Supreme Court, the "Supremes" finally clarified a question that's been in dispute for decades. Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution give private citizens the right to keep and bear arms? And the answer was ... (drum roll, please) ... YES! (I know that somewhere out there is a dyslexic who now plans to keep and arm bears, but that's a whole different issue). Although it was a close call, the 5-4 vote was a long-overdue victory for those of us who believe in the Constitution as it was written. After the revolutionary war, we didn't have much of a standing, professional army, hence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "Militia" were volunteer citizens who would bear arms for the public defense. Following the line of thought in my preceding post, once again the importance of this Amendment is emphasized by its being placed in the second position of the Bill of Rights - which are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

The Court, by majority opinion, ruled that the citizens of this country have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms, but stopped short of saying everybody has the right to "bear" them. One of the 19 definitions given for the word bear in the American Heritage Dictionary is "to carry from one place to another; transport". We are well aware that there are certain people who should not be allowed to even spell the word gun, much less own or carry one! Under what circumstances, and in what manner, should this 'right' be modified? I do not believe that convicted felons, or those persons adjudged mentally ill, or convicted of any crime of violence should be allowed to own or carry firearms. And that is, at present, the way the Federal law is written. I would add "gang members" to that list.

Federal requirements for registration of firearms ... I have mixed feelings about this one. I think the arms owning/bearing citizenry would feel more secure if the owner of firearms was registered, as opposed to registering by make, model, and serial number each weapon owned by the individual. The Feds could still require their $10 phone call, but only to verify that the applicant has been subjected to a background investigation by the FBI, and they could find nothing in that persons history that would disqualify him/her from purchasing an additional weapon. They do not need to know how many of what the law abiding citizen has in his/her possession. That would make a 'gun grab' by the government, or invaders, just too easy.

Those of us who hold a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon permit), issued by any state, should be permitted to carry concealed in all states, inasmuch as all CCW holders must have the same FBI background investigation, over and above the basic Federal authorization to purchase a firearm. As for variations from state-to-state for the qualifications (background investigation, training, and/or demonstration of proficiency, etc.) such requirements should remain within the purview of the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") provision for "States' rights". However, the Feds have a way of leveraging states into submitting to their collective will - the threat of withholding Federal tax monies that have been earmarked for things like schools, highway improvements, and various "pork" projects.

Before it becomes a perfect system, there will have to be many concepts proffered, many definitions clarified, and precise procedures established to ensure the Constitutional application of the Second Amendment, while State governments ensure that the general population is protected from those who have, through personal actions, and adjudication, proven themselves to be less- than-good risks around firearms. There has to be a provision for the application of common sense for the common good involved.