Health Care vs Gun Control

Just a simple observation on the subject of Presidential Hypocrisy.

President Obama is now suggesting that House Republicans appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue of gun control.

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

Kind of ironic when you think about the way the President and the Democratic majority, at the time, rammed through their health care reform when an overwhelming majority of Americans were opposed to it.

This is the sad state of politics in the United States. Hypocrites, in both parties, pat themselves on the back while they are promoting their beliefs, and yet condemn the other side when they do it.

So much for the great statesman who promised during the 2008 campaign that he would bring “…Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.”

This country is not supposed to be run this way. Maybe we need a reminder of the principals of our constitution.

I fear the actions of today are exactly what our founding fathers feared most. A government that has become a living breathing entity that has decided that it alone knows what is best for us. Whether we agree or not is no longer the point, we re just being told to submit for the “common good.”

Will this pursuit of an American Utopia end with the establishment of an actual American Dystopia? History teaches us that this type of environment never ends well. That is unless you happen to be at the top of the food chain when those changes are implemented.

For some reason I can’t seem to get the lyrics to the song by Canadian rock band Rush, 2112, out of my head:

“We've taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes.
It's one for all and all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why.”

It Can’t Happen Here (The Battle of Athens, 1946)

The other day I was reading through a series of posts by some on the “anti” side of the gun control debate.

What astonished me most was the overwhelming sense that there was no need for average people to own or possess firearms because of the belief that the issue of the 2^nd amendment was basically made null and void because we have a military, as well as police, to keep us safe.

Lately, I often find myself being very concerned with the direction we are going as a nation. I am reminded of the quote by Edmund Burke (1729-1797) "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

I never thought I would hear myself say this, but I would love to go back to elementary school, or even high school for that matter. I would love to know what the kids of today are being taught by our educators.

As often happens I find myself sitting here today with an opportunity to educate, and so I will leap at the chance. It’s funny how these things occur.

First let me say that I believe most people will accept that the 2^nd amendment was put in place for a reason. Whether you believe in guns or not isn’t the question. We all have our personal feelings and beliefs, but in the late 1700’s the founding fathers had some serious reservations about the country they were creating.

But first, let’s establish a few known facts about the cause of our fight for independance.

• The foundation for the war came about as the result, in part, of what was believed to be egregious taxation and a lack of ability on the part of those in the United States to have their voice be heard in England.
• The citizens formed a “Continental Congress” which was later declared a traitorous organization by the King.
• The war officially started on April 19^th, 1775 when the local militia (average citizens) faced off against the British Army (legal government authority) in what became known as the Battles of Lexington & Concord, when the latter came to seize a cache of weapons.
• The war lasted from 1775 until 1783 when the United States was official recognized as a sovereign country.
• This country was founded by the violent over through of a repressive government by its citizens

In talking about the militia, it is important to note that it was not the military reserves that we know today. In fact, it was the exact opposite. The military was the British Army and they were here in the United States. The militia existed on both sides (Patriot & Loyalist) in that it was simply citizens taking up arms. In some ways it can be argued that the Revolutionary War was in fact the first civil war. Some served the King, but neither was as an actual military organization. Their existence grew out of necessity.

Those who say that we have a militia today, in the form of the state military reserves, miss the key point. Whether they serve at the federal or the state level, they are an organization of the government. When the issue of the 2^nd amendment was being handled, the fear was that the government could one day become the problem again. The belief was that as long as the free man possessed firearms, individually, there would be a safeguard in place to protect that freedom.

Consider the following for a moment:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
- Samuel Adams, American Statesman and Founding Father

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
- George Washington, General and First President of the United States

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

I have a very difficult time reading these quotes and wondering why it was so readily apparent to these men, and yet today we struggle with the question of “what does the 2^nd amendment mean?”

Are we really so naïve to believe that we live in a time when we can turn our swords into plowshares because the government will provide for all our needs, including our safety? I pray that is not the fact as it is truly a delusional belief.

The truth is, despite what we are told from both political parties, the government is under no obligation to provide us with anything. That they do so is only to garner the votes necessary to keep them in office. I dare say that it is an impressive job that requires you to accomplish so little and yet receive so generously from the coffers of the American taxpayer.

But what about the argument we no longer need the guarantee afforded to us by the 2^nd Amendment that says we have the right to keep and bear arms. That those in the pro gun camp are the ones with vivid imaginations, who see imaginary threats. That they revel in conspiracy theories while fantasizing about taking up arms against the government. Surely they are no such recorded events of anything so vile.

Which brings us to the Battle of Athens, Tennessee (1946).

The Battle of Athens, also known as the McMinn County War, was an armed revolt led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tenn. against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of engaging in political corruption and voter intimidation. 

The story of Athens is one that will especially resonate with those living in rural communities. Many are well versed with “historical families” that seem to be the perpetual oil of the local county political machine. One has only to go to the local court house and read the names of the board members or local office holders to see a pattern quickly emerge. But the truth is that this story is not uncommon and is alive and well in urban areas today. Voter fraud is certainly well documented into the current day.

In this particular case, there had long been complaints about political corruption and election fraud in McMinn County. The Justice Department had investigated allegations in 1940, 1942, and 1944, but had not taken any action. The Cantrell family essentially ruled the county.

Sheriff Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in 1936 and reelected in the 1938 and 1940 elections. He then went on to win the state senate seat elections in 1942 and 1944. After being elected to the state senate his former deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected as sheriff. 

A state law enacted in 1941 by a friend of the Cantrell family had succeeded in reducing local political opposition in McMinn County by lowering the number of voting precincts from twenty-three to twelve and reducing the number of justices of the peace from fourteen to seven. Of the seven judges, four were known to be "Cantrell men". 

The sheriff and his deputies worked under a fee system whereby they received money for every person they booked, incarcerated, and released; the more arrests, the more money they made.

Deputies routinely boarded buses passing through and dragged sleepy-eyed passengers to the jail to pay their fine for drunkenness, whether they were guilty or not. Arrests ran as high as 115 per weekend. It was less troublesome to collect kickbacks for allowing roadhouses to operate openly. Cooperative owners would point out influential patrons. They were not bothered, but the rest were subject to shakedowns. Prostitution, liquor, and gambling grew so prevalent that it became common knowledge in Tennessee that Athens was “wide open.”

In the 1946 election, Paul Cantrell was once again a candidate for sheriff. At the same time, Pat Mansfield sought the state senate seat. This set the stage for what was to come.

After World War II ended, some 3,000 military veterans (about 10% of the population) had returned to McMinn County. Some of these veterans decided to challenge Cantrell and fielded their own non-partisan candidates.  They called themselves the GI Non-Partisan League.

According to one veteran, Bill White, their motivation stemmed from the fact that they “began having trouble with the law enforcement at that time because they started making a habit of picking up GIs and fining them heavily for most anything, they were kind of making a racket out of it. After long hard years of service, most of us were hard-core veterans of World War II. We were used to drinking our liquor and our beer without being molested. When these things happened, the GIs got madder, the more GIs they arrested, the more they beat up, the madder we got…”

Combat veteran Knox Henry stood as candidate for sheriff in opposition to Cantrell. In advertisements and speeches, the GI candidates promised an honest ballot count and reform of county government. At a rally, a GI speaker said “the principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.”

In July 1946 the GI Party had petitioned the FBI to send election monitors, a request that went unanswered.

When the polls for the county election opened August 1, 1946 there were about three hundred armed “special deputies” patrolling the precincts, slightly more than the normal complement of fifteen deputies. The augmented force came in the form of paid reinforcements. Some from local police and the state highway patrol, some from out of state.

At the very beginning there were problems. Deputies seized Walter Ellis, a GI election judge and arrested him.  Ellis was taken to the county jail and was replaced by Fred West. Dispute over who exactly Fred West was immediately erupted. The sheriff's office described West as another GI, the GI Party advised that West was a deputy sheriff and local bartender.

There were a number of incidents that arose before the polls closed, the most serious of which, was when a deputy shot and wounded a black man who was trying to vote. Tom Gillespie, a farmer came into the Athens Water Company building, which was serving as the 11th Precinct, to vote. One of Cantrell's men positioned himself behind Gillespie to observe his vote. When he was observed to be preparing to vote "the wrong way" the Cantrell man told Gillespie, "nigger, you can’t vote here."

Gillespie protested to Deputy Windy Wise, "I've always voted here before." For this monumental impertinence, Wise slugged Gillespie with brass knuckles and shot him with what was said to be a U.S. Army .45 as he stumbled out the door. Gillespie suffered a flesh wound in the small of the back and was taken off by deputy sheriffs for what they said would be treatment, but he was actually taken to the jail.

When the polls closed, deputies seized the ballot boxes and took them to the jail. Opposition veterans responded by arming themselves and marching there. Some of them had raided the National Guard Armory, obtaining arms and ammunition. Estimates of the number of veterans vary from several hundred to as high as two thousand. When the men reached the jail, it was barricaded and manned by over fifty deputies.

The veterans demanded the ballot boxes but were refused. They then opened fire on the jail. In the end, the door of the jail was breached by explosives. The barricaded deputies, some with injuries, surrendered, and the ballot boxes were recovered. The recovered ballots certified the election of the five GI Non-Partisan League candidates.

During the fight at the jail, rioting had broken out throughout Athens, mainly targeted at police. This continued even after the ballot boxes were recovered, but subsided by morning. Following the victory by the GI Non-Partisan League, deputies of the prior administration resigned and were replaced.

The incident in McMinn County was a serious event and it had national consequences. In fact, former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, penned an article in which she offered the following statement:

“When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee. If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad, settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force, then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our rights. What goes on before an election, the threats or persuasion by political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from really registering their will if they wish to.”

For those who believe that “it can’t happen here” I pity you. You are the very ones that Edmund Burke was speaking to. The question isn’t whether we require our guns because we believe something might happen, but that we require them to ensure nothing ever will happen.

Americans are patriots, and we hold the idea of this Republic with pride and honor. Even when we do not subscribe to the political folly of some, our fight is taken up at the ballot box. But what happens when that right is infringed upon? The battle of Athens is a case study in why the founding fathers believed so strongly in the 2^nd amendment.

As we move forward in the debate over gun control, I know a lot of good people in law enforcement who have already said that they will take no action to enforce any law that requires citizens from disarming. I salute them as it is a very brave thing to do. But I wonder about the ones who, when confronted over the decision to enforce a law they don’t believe in or risk their careers, will choose the former.

Will that be the flash point? Will it become the modern day “Battle of Lexington”?

I pray not.

There is a growing disillusionment with the political theater that is taking hold in this country. What side you are on does not matter, only the fact that the divide is becoming wider. Out of control spending, increasing taxation, coupled with an unending list of entitlements, is fueling the fears of many Americans. Now a renewed call for gun control, over otherwise law abiding people, may be the tipping point.

Reminds me of what Joseph Heller wrote in Catch-22: “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”

I don’t know what the future brings, but I do know how we have gotten here. That is a matter of record. If we choose to ignore that history we do so at our own peril.

President Abraham Lincoln is held in very high esteem by the current President as well as many other notables, with good reason. In fact the President Obama has often quoted him. So I feel inclined to present another quote, this from President Lincoln’s first inaugural address:

"The government, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

-Abraham Lincoln

  

Knee Jerk – The Silliness of Gun Control Legislation

Knee Jerk Reaction: an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive.

On January 15th, New York State Governor, Andrew Cuomo, signed the New York Safe Act, the law includes not only a tougher assault weapons ban which  broadens the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, but also limits the capacity of magazines to seven bullets, down from 10.  As he signed the bill into law, Cuomo said it was not only "the first bill" but the "best bill."

Maybe the Governor might have spoken a little two quickly.

I feel I am qualified to speak on this matter as an ex pat New Yorker who was born and raised in NYC and who gave twenty years of his life protecting the residents of that city. Sadly, the city and department I love are mere shadows of their once great selves.

But on Tuesday, Governor Cuomo, with the aid of the New York State Legislature, passed what has to be one of the greatest knee jerk reactions to a tragedy I can remember.

For those who may have missed my earlier diatribe on the topic of gun control please take a moment to bring yourself up to speed here:

Gun Control Rears Its Ugly Head - Again (As Promised)

OK, so now that you are in sync with my feelings, let me just add the reason why I believe this is a typical political knee jerk reaction.

1. It only sounds like they know what they are doing, and

2. No one ever thought it through.

I say that, because very simply the state law bans magazines over seven rounds, firearms used by most police officers throughout NYS typically use magazines that hold twice as many bullets.

Nowhere in the law does it exempt police officers.

Which is precisely the reason for all the hand-wringing going on now and statements like “(police officers) are not in violation of this law and they never will be, period” being made. But the truth is they are in violation unless an amendment is added.

Now this territory is not new. A  previous law was enacted nearly two decades ago to limit magazines to ten rounds. Whether you agree with that law or not, at least the politicians in that last go round saw fit to exempt officers from the start. I guess this law was akin to the Affordable Health Act where you “have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

Another interesting aspect of this “knee jerk” response is the fact that at the present moment, there is still some confusion as to whether officers can have a gun on school grounds.

No, I’m not making this up.

Now I am sure that the bright lights that illuminate the hollowed halls of the State Capitol in Albany will rectify this. I’ve gotten emails from at least a half dozen law enforcement unions and fraternal organizations trying to calm their current members. But there is one interesting issue that still hasn’t been addressed:

What about retired officers?

There are certainly enough people out there who have no problem with limiting the amount of rounds a retired officer may carry. I have heard more than enough of the sad arguments:

• Don't they understand the meaning of "retired"?

• Get over yourselves, ex-cops. No one's asking you to defend the public anymore. 

• Retired Officers (aka normal citizens) are complaining that the law applies to them? 

• If an officer is retired, he is a civilian and should be limited in bullets and guns as all civilians are.

• This is nothing but another example of how the police come to believe they are somehow better than those they are supposed to be protecting. 

• Why does a retired cop need more than 7 bullets in a gun. Technically he doesn't even need a gun!

Whether you agree with these views or not is not the actual issue. The fact is this matter was resolved under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (HR218) which provides for qualified retired officers. The question at hand today then becomes, why are the magazines that I carried during my career now illegal?

The answer is best summed up in my earlier referenced article, which is simply this is all smoke and mirrors. A quickly conjured up bill, to appease a particular group of people, without any consideration given to the actual merit of the items being proposed.

The truth is if magazines are restricted, someone will now simply carry two magazines instead of the one in his or her firearm. It will take anywhere from 1-4 seconds for someone nominally proficient to reload the empty 7 round magazine with another and have basically just as many as he would have prior to this bill.

I am curious though about a statement that Governor Cuomo made. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with commonsense, and you can make this state a safer state."

I guess in the eyes of the Governor, the fact that I disagree with him and his views now makes me an extreme mist. Thankfully I no longer reside in his fairy tale utopia. Although the present spit of land I call "home" is most likely only a step or two behind.

At the end of the day, at the very best, this is just another “feel good” legislation that will do little to no good in actually ending or even addressing violence. Let’s be honest, guns, like knives or vehicles or hammers for that matter, are jut instruments used to kill someone else. At the crux of the problem is the individual possessing them and if that individual has actually crossed the threshold from reality to a place where the intentional killing of another human being is a viable option for them you will not stop it.  As I have said before, you cannot legislate morality.

This isn’t the first, but only the latest in a long line of attacks against legally owned firearms, all in the name of safety. Unfortunately, like its predecessors, it will have little impact on gun violence. However, what it does do is something that people do not seem to be able to comprehend. It erodes your rights one small bite at a time. One day, those who championed “common sense” laws will wake up to the fact that the only thing common in all of it was a slow, systematic move to strip everyone of their firearms.

The 2^nd Amendment is like the “Main Beam” in the construction of the home, or the country for that matter. Now you can think that removing it will make your house prettier and give you more room for the things you want, but try taking it out and see how long your little quaint cottage lasts.

Don’t believe me? That’s your prerogative just like owning a firearm is mine. But I am often reminded of the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin “Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.”

There may come a time when that quote is altered once again to read "Those who beat their plowshares into swords usually end up defending those who didn't."

I don’t know what the future holds, but I don’t like the clouds on the horizons. What scares me most is that all of this seems to have already been foretold. I implore you to look beyond today and look back in time, to a period when this country was first being formed, and to the sage advice of our founding fathers. Let their words guide your heart and mind, lest you wake up one day and find that you now reside in their worst fears, by your own doing.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."  - Tench Coxe (Delegate, Continental Congress)

Gun Control Rears Its Ugly Head - Again (As Promised)

The first recorded homicide in history occurs in Genesis 4:8 “Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.”

The story of mans inhumanity to man is as old as recorded time, and yet we still seem to struggle with this fact today. At the core of this struggle seems to be an issue we have difficulty in dealing with: personal responsibility.

We, as human beings, seem to abhor accepting responsibility for what we do. We are constantly trying to “pass the buck” or “point the finger” in an attempt to redirect attention away from our actions or inactions. Never has this been truer then in the society we live in today.

So how does this relate to Gun Control and the tragedy of Newtown, Connecticut?

First, like the death of Abel, it is a tragedy. It is especially true when you have young children that are killed in an act of senseless violence. As a father, I can not imagine what those parents are going through but I pray for them and their families. The hardest part for me as a Christian is grappling with the fundamental question of why God allows certain things to happen.

But I remember Isaiah 45:9 “"What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, 'Stop, you're doing it wrong!' Does the pot exclaim, 'How clumsy can you be?”

Whether we have the capacity to understand does not mean that there is not a reason. When we were children our parents prevented us from doing things that we wanted to. We didn’t understand then, but by and large we do now. I like to use the old “don’t touch the stove” adage. It’s a visual many people can understand and appreciate.

So again you might be asking what does this have to do with gun control?

The simple answer is that it comes back to personal responsibility. Gun control is akin to parents throwing out their stoves instead of teaching their children not to touch it. It removes the responsibility from the individual and places it on an object. The parents sit around feeling good about how they “protected” their children and yet all they have done is kicked the can down the road till the kid finds the latest threat. If that’s the way society acted we would all grow up in houses without cabinets, stoves, refrigerators, electricity, scissors, knives, door handles, tubs,…….. See my point?

In fact, it’s not even a new point. Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, was an Italian jurist, philosopher and politician best known for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764). It is staggering to consider that 250 years ago the issue of Gun Control was being addressed.  “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”

Let me tell you what I do know from twenty plus years of law enforcement experience and thirty plus years of gun ownership.

Gun Control is a lie. It does not work.

If stringent gun laws actually worked, then ask yourself why places like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Detroit, etc. continue to have issues?  Why were there 532 murders in Chicago, a city that is considered the poster child for gun control laws? If removing all guns is the answer, then how do you explain crime in countries like England or Australia?

Back in 1996 a man, described as a “pathetic social misfit” killed 35 men, women and children in Australia’s worst mass murder. The then newly elected Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, seized the opportunity to radically overhaul Australia's gun laws. In doing so he trampled all opposition and Australia’s gun law among the strictest in the developed world. At the time, Prime Minister Howard went so far as to openly state "I hate guns. One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." Howard argued there was “no reason civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons.” As is the case with most gun control supporters, Howard made the “common sense” argument that “tougher laws would make Australia safer.”  However research conducted twelve years later determined, despite everything that was done, that what the citizens of Australia actually got from the knee-jerk reaction amounted to nothing more than an extraordinary waste of public money and gun laws that made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates.

In fact, gun crime in England was up 35% last year. In fact, it was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise. This in a country where all guns, with few exceptions, are completely banned. Ironically, after the passage of the firearms ban in 1997, the number of crimes involving firearms increased from 13,874 reported in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03.

This begs the question, why?

The answer is two fold. First, despite “best intentions” you cannot legislate morality or personal responsibility. Second, criminals by their very nature do not obey the law. You would think this second issue would be “common sense” but you would be surprised if you listened to the gun control folks. As Australia found out, and something England already knows, criminals do not obey the law to begin with so the use of a firearm is just “another charge” to them. However, it is a tool that can make their job a lot easier and a lot safer. It’s a fairly good feeling to know that you are the only one at the party with a means of defense.

So if gun control really does nothing to address the issue, why pursue it?

The answer to that question comes back to responsibility. Everyone wants a quick answer yet no one wants to do the actual work. Politicians, who never met a camera they didn’t like, are thrust in front of a crazed media looking for talking points. The politician stands before the throng wringing their hands, feigning mock outrage and gives them what they want. The answer comes in the form of new gun laws aimed at keeping these “killing machines” out of the hands of…………….law abiding citizens. A group, as Beccaria-Bonesana noted, that is “neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”

But what does that have to do with criminals and the acts they commit? Nothing.

You see, politicians understand this. Just as parents understand that the stove is not the real issue. But politicians, like some parents, don’t want to address the real problem. They don’t want to talk about how the “joke” that has become our judicial system has created overcrowding in the correctional institutions. People don’t want more prisons built, especially in “their” backyards, and so we “point fingers” everywhere other than where they should be pointed. Rather than deal with the actual issues, they want to stick their hand in the water, shake it around and get things nice and muddy so that what should be crystal clear to us becomes muddy and murky.

For the gun control crowd, the key to the epidemic gun violence in Chicago, committed by criminals, is to remove all the legally owned guns throughout Illinois. Then the criminals won’t get them. Seriously, that’s their argument. The fact that these criminals already have guns doesn’t seem to distract them.

But what happens when it simply does not work? For most of my professional career I have had politicians time and again call for “stricter” gun laws to curb violence. I went through the whole “assault weapons ban” of the Clinton era. The one thing I have found is that all these laws were wonderful in curbing legal ownership but I never found it to be a significant deterrent to the criminal element. Like whiskey during prohibition, if you got money you can get anything.

The one thing I did find was that criminals were more or less amused at our so called justice system. For the longest time the standing joke was that we, the police, spent more time in the booking system then the actual criminals. I can personal attest to the fact that I spent “days” in the booking system while my prisoner was gone within hours. Even when they were found guilty the odds of spending any length of time in prison was minimal, even under the vaunted gun laws of New York City. In fact, it was not that uncommon for the gun charge to get dropped during plea bargain agreements.

So, if you are like me, you have to ask why make new laws when your not enforcing the ones already on the books? The answer is that someone has to bear the responsibility. The worst thing that can happen when there is a tragedy is for a lot of people to stand around and do nothing, especially politicians. We want answers, we demand them, and we are willing to accept knee jerk ones if they sound good.

The media backs this folly for ratings, and unfortunately, they lie. How can I say this? Very simply, when it comes to guns by and large the media is in the anti gun camp. If we are going to have this debate then lets at least be honest. Next time there is a murder in your city, look at the graphic the evening news puts up. Chances are it will have a gun in it. How the person was actually killed doesn’t matter. The gun will paint a picture. It’s a subliminal message. Next time there is a local gun rally, you will normally see a gun control advocate calling for “sensible” gun laws, and then a pro gun advocate will be shown carrying on about “prying it from my cold dead fingers.” On a real slow news day they might even wait to get a shot of someone dressed as a patriot………… anyway you put it, it’s dishonest. An honest debate is one where both sides are presented, fairly, and the people get to make their own choices, not based on the media pabulum that is provided to them for their digestion.

In fact, one has to look no further for an example then the media’s blatant misuse of the word “assault weapon.”  The term is 100% disingenuous and they know it. Maybe you have asked yourself, what is an “assault weapon?” If you follow the news, it seems they are used in just about EVERY crime committed. The truth is a genuine assault weapon is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semi-automatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are already heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. For instance, even though you can own one under federal law, Illinois says no.  Not only are these types of weapons heavily regulated, they are extremely expensive. That H&K MP5 “assault weapon” that Hollywood is so fond of showing in all their action films will set you back a mere 15-16 thousand dollars. The fact is, these assault weapons are used in an extremely small percentage of crimes. It’s the equivalent of using a Porsche 911 as a getaway car.

Then why do they do it? Because it sounds salacious. It sells and at the end of the day that is all they care about. Not truth, ratings. The reality is that when a long gun (i.e. AK4, AR15, etc.,) are used they are almost certainly going to be semi-automatic. What does this mean? Very simple, each shot requires the shooter to pull the trigger. It’s the same basic mechanical system your grandfather may have used in WWII whether he used an M-1 Garand, Kar-98, Type 4 Arisaka, or an SVT-40. So what is the real fuss about?

When you get down to the brass tacks, these types of rifles are vilified simply because of the way they look. But is the way a gun looks reason enough to ban it?

The other day a family member asked this question “why do you need to own a gun like that?”  I am often amazed at this question, because it seems to fly in the face of everything we believe in this country. That if you work hard, that you raise yourself up, you can accomplish anything you want in life. That your limits are only those you impose on yourself. You can opt to live in a modest home in the Midwest or you can choose an opulent penthouse with a view of Central Park. All dependant upon your personal goals and desires.

Let me put it to you this way, the state of Texas has a 41 mile long road that has the highest posted speed limit in the United States, 85 MPH. The highest in others states range between 65-75 MPH. If that is the case why should people be allowed to have cars that potentially can go faster than that? What is the reason? Yes, you might be able to afford a Lamborghini Diablo, and you might even want it, but why should you be able to own something that potentially could be used to violate the law………..

This may seem a funny example, but the truth is that the CDC reports you are more likely to die in a vehicle accident than you are by firearm. So why isn’t there a call to ban any cars that “look” fast?

Ironically, should legislation be enacted, the firearm I carried as a law enforcement officer would now potentially become illegal. So while I was working for the government it was okay, but now that I am retired I could be identified as a criminal? Ask yourself this simple question: “If government can do this, in the name of safety, what else can it do?”

At the heart of the matter is the principal belief by some that guns are bad and should be banned. But as Americans, should we accept this? I consider myself a tolerant person, I may not believe in the same things you do, but I don’t call for a ban on your right to do them, I simply choose not to do them myself. But the gun control group “believes” they know what’s best for you and therefore guns should be banned.  Consider for a moment that the statistics leading up to the 1992 “Assault Weapons Ban” indicated that Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involved any type of rifle. In fact, no more than .8% of homicides were perpetrated with rifles using military calibers (i.e. AR-15, AK-47 rounds).  So why did they ban them? Make no mistake, they might say openly that they only want “this gun” or “that gun” banned, but it really is just the first steps. They start with that and will use it as a stepping stone to gun confiscation. Because honestly, they just don’t like guns.

“I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.”

- then Senator Barack Obama

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Senator Diane Feinstein (A concealed weapons permit holder)

"Those of who are pro-gun control have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms... once we establish that there is a constitutional right to bear arms we should have the right admit, and maybe they'll be more willing to admit, that no amendment is absolute after all."

-Senator Charles Schumer (A concealed weapons permit holder who also has an NYPD Protection detail)

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns."

 - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

The one thing about the internet is that everything you say seems to have been recorded for all posterity.

This agenda is nothing new. I have written about this before.

AWB: Eric Holder fires the first shot

Those Dangerous Military Veterans

NYC Anti Gun Mayor - No to National Guard

The funny thing is that over the years I have written a lot more about this issue. Most I never bothered to post. I would write for days, get frustrated at the fact that I felt no one would even bother to care, and just file it. Maybe I am part of the problem for doing that. Maybe I should just post them and let you decide; maybe if I could reach out to one person it would be worth the effort.

In the end the true question we need to ask ourselves is this: “Can the government legislate personal responsibility?”

As a country we seem to have come to a crossroads. In the name of diversification and inclusiveness we have pushed God out the door and replaced him with “nothing.” Rather then offend someone who doesn’t believe in anything, we choose to restrict the majority who do. We turn our backs on God, and advise people to just live their lives without restriction, and then wonder why people act the way they do. Without a belief system there are no boundaries, no rules. If I do not worry about the consequences of an almighty, then I can justify my actions and do whatever I want without fear of retaliation.

Maybe it is time for us as Americans to question whether the crossroad we have chosen to go down was the right one.

Maybe we should stop trying to blame “things” and begin to hold individuals responsible.

Maybe, rather than blaming law abiding citizens, we should go after those who commit the crimes.

Politicians are inclined to take the path of least resistance. One has only to turn on a TV or pickup a newspaper to see what has happened in DC.

This country is drowning in debt and the answer is not to be more fiscally responsible, but to spend more and raise our credit limit.

Yet what have they done to address all the others issues that contribute to gun violence? Poverty, Drugs, Mental Illness? Nothing………. It’s all smoke and mirrors. They get their headlines, they get their fifteen minutes of fame and when it fails, they wring their hands, blame someone else and say “oh well, we tried.”

The issue is that we have stopped encouraging individuals to rise to the top, and are now dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.  Personal responsibility has now been replaced with “medals for everyone, we are all special.” Then when our little prodigies go out into the real world they are amazed when someone actually expects them to deliver the mail to the CEO rather than making them the CEO when they are hired. Instead of sucking it up, they begin to blame everyone else for their shortcomings and we accept it and make excuses for them.

As a country we will not survive on this path. This is not doom and gloom but simple truth. There is what is called the law of unintended consequence that says, despite political double speak, there are consequences to folly.  But if it is the government that is the leading proponent for taking this path, what happens to you as an individual when their folly becomes your consequence to deal with?

You will begin to hear a lot coming out of Washington and gun control advocates talking about how “these guns are not legitimate hunting weapons.” That is true. The gun control group is now engaging in revisionist tactics. That they have no objection to individuals hunting, or sport shooting, etc…. but they just want to get rid of those pesky bad “military” style items that have “no lawful purpose”  you know, “common sense” gun control.

But where in the 2nd Amendment does it talk about “hunting weapons.” It specifically says “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 answer is this, the founding fathers wrote the constitution and the bill of rights because they realized the potential for abuse by the government they were creating. It was their desire that the government should be subservient to the people. It scared them that over time the government could become corrupted and they sought to secure the individual rights so that there would always be a defense against any abuse.

Consider these two quotes:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

Whether we wish to admit it or not, the words are crystal clear.

The question at hand now is the ability of the state (government) to be secure. When the government has become incapable of adequately addressing crime and providing for protection, should its citizens be disarmed of their right to do it simply for some alleged “common good”?

There have been and always will be criminals, nothing will stop that, so is expecting protection to come in the form of police the answer? Some, like NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, will tell you yes.

There is only one problem, it’s a lie.

In 1981 there was a case called Warren v. District of Columbia. It detailed an extremely heinous crime against three women and the failure of the police to respond. D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Latest statistics show that there are approximately eight hundred thousand law enforcement officers in the United States. The ratio of officer to citizen is approximately 1 to 375. That is of course assuming that every one of those officers was on patrol, twenty-four / seven.

Even if you combined the number of active duty and reserve military personnel, which is just about 3 million, you still would only have approximately four million potential “protectors” for a population of over 300 million citizens or a ratio of 1 to 75 again assuming the 24/7 rule.

Consider this for a moment, the state of Alaska is 663,300 sq miles and is 1/5th the size of the lower 48 states. To put this in perspective it would be equal to the states of Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. It has a population of about ¾ quarters of a million people with just a little more than eleven hundred sworn officers.

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is an auxiliary deterrent provided when possible but without guarantee.

As a professional law enforcement officer I can tell you with full conviction, based upon experience, that security is an illusion, just like gun control is. It is the folly of a government ill equipped, or unwilling, to take action to address the real problem and fearful that one day its citizens will realize that and try to strip away their power. When that fear becomes real to them, they will take actions to remove it. That’s what the founders understood, that’s what all tyrannical governments understand as well.   

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
- Mao Tse Tung

In the event that you thought the above quote was a little dated, Xinhua, the official news agency for the Chinese government, said “Americans need to be disarmed immediately, and Obama should exploit the Sandy Hook massacre to bring that about.”

Guess the party line has not changed much. It’s worked so well for the people there.

Happy 2013 !!

Welcome everyone to 2013. I am a little behind the curve here lately as the holidays kept me quite busy. I did an interesting experiment from Thanksgiving through New Years, I turned off the news, just completely boycotted it. I learned some very interesting things that I plan to share.

But for now I just wanted to wish everyone a happy 2013 !!