The Liberties of our Forebears

In a note to myself I scribbled the words "The liberties enjoyed by the generation of the Founding Fathers may well amaze most of us and, in fact, be deemed by us as too much liberty."

Is there such a state of being defined by the exercise of too much liberty? This seems to be the paradigm of the modern American citizen. We are used to the prospect of being stopped by the police for sundry reasons, most notably as a result of how fast we drive our cars. In fact we are probably more fearful of that inconvenience than being "inconvenienced" by a criminal act by someone we've never met and would never see coming anyway.

And that says volumes about where we are as a society than anything else. Are we more afraid of our government institutions than we are of complete strangers who share our habitat? In essence, are we afraid of our government? And if we are, why?

Perhaps many of us go about our business never giving a thought to this question, but it is worth asking. If we live in a society in which our worst nightmares are of arrest by authorities for "crimes" that were mere misdemeanors yesterday, and not even misdemeanors the day before, then we should begin finding out where that crazy idea that we are free came from.

When I was twelve years old my dad gave me and my younger brother each our own 12 gauge shotguns. We were permitted to carry our shotguns from the home, down the street, in broad daylight, with ammunition and then into the woods where we would load them and hunt or just shoot stuff. No big deal. That was 38 years ago.

I doubt that would be allowed to happen today. But why? What has changed since then? I never took my shotgun to school. In fact I never thought I should or even could. I never used it in a criminal manner and never thought to do so. But, something has changed in 38 years. Now anyone, especially a young person, is so suspect if in possession of a firearm that the whole scenario seems to draw way too much response and way too much judiciary review.

This is so not the same place in which Sam Adams sojourned. I have never lived there, even though I have lived here all my life.

Please, Stop Lying to Me!

It is apparent to me that since all gun control is proposed as a means to lower the crime rate and yet areas where guns are most severely prohibited have the highest rates of crime, the argument is a failed argument. So, what is the real goal of firearms prohibitionists?

The Brady Campaign voices its main concern as "gun violence" yet seems completely unconcerned about violence committed by other means. Why just gun violence? The same can be said about the Violence Policy Center and a host of other organisations bent on prohibiting the ancient right of free men.

Since the Supreme Court decision DC-v- Heller, Mr. Heller was "allowed" to register his weapon and be issued a license so he may have a firearm in his home to protect himself and his family from gun violence, and violence by other means, at the hands of an uncaring home invader. However it was not that simple. He was not allowed to register the weapon of his choice since it was by a cleverly structured definition a machine gun, but only considered as such by Washington DC authorities, he could not lawfully even possess it and had to settle on a revolver instead of the more utilitarian semi-automatic handgun he had in mind.

Now, Mr. Heller is a "Special Police Officer" in the District of Columbia and while on the job is required/permitted? to carry a firearm in order to fully execute his duties. Now, I ask, what is the real purpose of the gun prohibitionists when the law is used to prohibit handgun ownership of not only a law abiding citizen, but a law enforcing citizen? I can only conclude that the ultimate goal of all gun control schemes is to strip us all of our civil liberties and then, and only then, may one speak of "all we, like sheep."

Oh no! Not this crap again.

Paul Helmke, a contributing writer to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Blog, and officer of same, wrote a piece of propaganda that would even impress Joseph Goebbels. In fact, without even reading any of his other work I could probably say that as propaganda, they are all just as good. As an aside, I just noticed that Goebbels and Goering have only one word between them in my dictionary. If that has no significance for you read Inside the 3rd Reich.

Back to Paul Helmke. Paul's latest treatise seems to be about how well the Brady Instant Background Check system protects us by having denied 135,ooo dangerous people the ability to purchase a firearm in the last year and from one dangerous person in particular. You should go and read the entire article and then come back here.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/?p=684

Did you read it? Good. Now, I concede that in the one case of Mr. Drew Douglas Grant, whose real name is Andrew Golden, that everything worked like it was suppose to. I think you would agree as well. However, where Mr. Helmke wanders into the deep end of deceit and lies, which is where the entire venture called The Brady Campaign originates, is his insistence that all 135,000 persons denied to purchase a firearm are really the dangerous persons he thinks they are or, rather who he wants you to think they are.

You see, not all Brady Denials are because Joe Criminal, who just got released from Sing-Sing for murder, went into a gun store and tried to buy a gun from a federally licensed firearm dealer and got denied because his background check failed. In this context James Jay Baker, Wayne LaPierre and Richard Gardiner, all spokesmen for the NRA, are correct in the statements they made that Mr. Helmke seems to be calling them on simply because he now has proof that at least one convicted killer did in fact attempt to apply for a concealed carry permit and got caught. Not the same thing as getting denied a gun purchase at a gun store but the background check for a concealed carry permit is the same as that for a gun purchase. Plus the investigation for a concealed carry permit requires checking fingerprints against the FBI finger print database.

Did a light just turn on in your head?

Question 1. Did Mr. Grant already possess a firearm and was just seeking a permit to carry it on his person? If so, did Mr. Grant already "pass" an instant background check to purchase the gun? Or was the gun acquired by other means? In any event Mr. Grant's scheme ended in disaster not because of the Brady Instant Background Check but because of the fingerprint analysis portion of his concealed carry permit application.

Question 2. Does Mr. Helmke realize that it was not the Brady Instant Background Check that busted Mr. Grant? If so, why does he go on and on and on trying to convince you that the Brady Instant Background Checks are all that stand between you and certain death?

I cannot say I know the answers raised by Question 1. But, for Question 2 I can speculate that Mr. Helmke is purposely being deceitful in order to get you to believe things that are not completely true.

Even I, after first reading the article, thought that Mr. Grant's scheme ended with a negative result from a Brady Instant Background Check. I had to read it more than once to realize the trick Mr. Helmke played on me. If you look around the Brady Campaign web site take a few notes and try to substantiate some of the claims they make, especially their statistics. They seem to be a little vague in their sourcing so you may have a hard time of it. I know I did.

After the Election

It's after the election, Obama got himself elected and now what? Probably nothing much since he is inheriting a complete cluster fuck but I guess he'll just love it since it was brought to us by the Democratic Party anyway. The Mother of All Bailouts has already been extended to the auto industry and since I haven't heard much more about any of it I guess the Bailouts worked. Or did they? I just don't know.

Israel is kicking butt in Gaza. I say more power to them. The last I heard anything they were considering a 48 hour recess. I say press on.

Anyway firearms sales in this country are up, way up. I got my Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Gun That No One Needs Anyway, because I need it in case Obama gets elected and signs into law a ban on Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Guns That No One Needs Anyway, back in October before the election on just a hunch Obama would get elected. Now everyone is out to get them a Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Gun That No One Needs Anyway before the next ban on Hi-Powered Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Rifle Guns That No One Needs Anyway is made into law.

I know, you're thinking no one is going to take your guns away. But I know better and so should you. I know, you're thinking it's not that important. But I know better and so should you. Did you know that in the last 100 or so years, governments, not citizens, killed over 170,000,000 men, women and children through various means. This does not include soldiers killed in combat. It only includes civilians who were killed by a government entity. They were killed by such means as "being shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, worked to death, buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed from the sky or killed in any other myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens." Source: The Seven Myths of Gun Control by Richard Poe, paper back edition copyrighted 2001, Three Rivers Press, New York, page 21.

But first, they all had to be disarmed. So the next time you hear a politician pushing for a new law that has anything to do with restricting or registering firearms or firearms owners, ask yourself, why? And remember what you just read and gun control means controlling you, not guns.

What if Obama wins the election?

Instead of an Atheist Thought of the Week, and since this is my blog, I would like to ask a question. I have read an article or two on the consequences of Obama losing the election, with a hint there may be some rioting in some or all of the major US cities. That would certainly be a less than a favorable outcome under this premise. In one article it was put as perhaps being like the rioting after Rodney King was beaten by police. But what if he won? And then some ignorant, deep south, raving racist lunatic from perhaps Mississippi or Louisiana, though not limited to just those two states, managed to kill him. What kind of rioting would come of that? One can only hope it won't come to that. But I fear, though we as a nation have made great strides in learning to live together as civilised peoples, it has not been so long as to be certain there is not one or more determined racist that will not brook a black man as President.

The premise just outlined to you is not original with me. A friend who has more time to think of such things as I do put this in my head. It is something to wonder about and prepare for if only somewhat minimally however you may think you should where you live. Where I live I doubt anything will happen as I live in a very rural area of Middle Georgia, but the Cities of Macon and Atlanta a little north and just a bit farther north of me respectfully could see some outcries of injustice. And let's not discount the power and ability of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan to exacerbate any situation to deadly proportions.

As it gets closer to November we should all think about this and prepare accordingly. Hopefully the election will go smoothly and the loser will be graceful and nothing else will come about as a result either way. But chance favors the prepared mind and perhaps that is all I am really saying here.

Good night, Gracie!