Friday, December 14, 2012

Why? Today's school shooting

We'll probably never know the answer to that, but I a glimmer of a thought has occured to me.

Our society has been drifting away from personal responsibility, and towards blaming somebody, anybody but the individual actor for the misery that one person causes.

We hear some blame "poverty" for crime.  "Society is at fault!"

We hear others blame those of another race.  "Racism is keeping us down!"

We even hear echos of the evils of slavery and how the descendents of slaves are somehow not to blame for their current plight.

There exists a whole industry of "activists" and excuse-makers, who lay the blame for any number of society's ills on society at large, instead of upon the individual who, although supposedly a rational, thinking  and reasoning soul, has made a series of less than optimal choices leading up to their current situation.

When segments of society procreate without cohesive family units, they deprive their children of the optimum opportunity for development.  That is NOT society's fault.  It is the choice of the individual parents involved.

When politicians and "poverty advocates" blame the lack of a good education for poverty, do they ever look at the individual choices made by those whose education is lacking?  How much effort was put into the coursework over the standard thirteen-year public school education period?

When "blame others" becomes the mantra of society, isn't there a tendency for someone who feels injured to come to the conclusion that those "others" must be punished?

Early reports indicate that today's shooter killed his own mother, and also murdered innocent children.  His crime is so foreign to the thoughts of most of us that our immediate reaction is some level of insanity, for we truly believe that only an insane person could commit such acts.

For others, this person was simply evil, and decided to commit murder out of that motive.

I believe it is both:  however, the insanity is revealed in the symptom of rejecting personal responsibility for one's action, and laying the blame elsewhere:  on an unhappy childhood, on poverty, on emotional upheaval...

If we accept the pemise that humans are rational, thinking beings capable of understanding cause and effect instead of animals subject only to our instincts and basic drives, we must accept the concept that we are, each of us, responsible for our own actions as adults.

For centuries, young children were given the benefit of the doubt because it was clear that they hadn't grown to a level of maturity capable of understanding the consequences of actions.

Adults, on the other hand, with some few exceptions, can.   Therefore, each of us must be held accountable for our own decisions, and not be allowed to put the blame on others for the direct results of those choices.

How is this "blame others" attitude manifest?   Tax the successful!  Reward the spendthrift!  Assist the profligate!

We give "refundable" tax credits to those who pump out children that they cannot afford to raise.

We tax the productive when their ingenuity produces products that generate great wealth by being of value to multitudes of individuals, who freely purchase those items or services because they are worth at least the amount paid.

We allow our national soverignty to be trampled by those who come in uninvited across our borders, demand the benefits of the society we have created, and drain our resources without demonstrating a relinquishment of allegiance to another nation: one that does not give them the freedoms they have by being here.

Many of the truths of the old proverbs are ignored.

We try to squeeze more from the goose that lays the golden eggs, but cut back its feed.

We say to the Little Red Hen, it matters not that you planted the crop, weeded the fields, harvested and threshed the grain, ground it to flour and baked the bread.  You must give up the fruits of your labor to those who have not worked as hard...  or at all.

We reward and excuse the scoundrel by taxing and punishing the good steward.

In such a world, is the evil we see any wonder at all?

Saturday, February 5, 2011

School Shootings, Then and Now

From my high school annual, page 72...

The rifle team fired off these air rifles inside the gymnasium for practice and competition.
There was also archery, with actual bows and arrows during physical education classes.
Nobody got killed. Nobody called the police. Nobody got in a tither.
And the guys (and gals) in woodshop also made new stocks for their hunting rifles... brought them to school for fitting and installation.
Which society was more sane? The one from thirty-five years ago where these inanimate objects were understood, studied, commonplace, and used appropriately, or the one of today where a good percentage of the population has such a fear of firearms as to desire them banned, even over the clear language of the US and most State Constitutions?

Saturday, January 8, 2011

I Have a Dream

Each day I read about people getting caught up in a myriad of laws and convoluted regulations governing firearms... you know, rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers... the run-of-the-mill tool used by police departments, hunters, homeowners, and businesspersons for good things like protecting the public from criminal actors, putting meat on the table, defending home and family and livelihood.

Just moving across state lines can make one a felon. Ask Brian Aitken.

So. I have a simple solution. Congress does its real job, in accordance with the Constitution, and in recognition that a firearm is merely a tool. Criminal use of a firearm is something altogether different than mere possession and "packing".

What think you of this?

A Bill for an Act

There being great disparity in the laws governing the possession and carrying of arms by the citizens of these United States, in obvious conflict with the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these United States, as well as with the various Constitutions of the Several States, Congress here sets forth, in accordance with the delegated Powers as described in Article IV of the Constitution of these United States, which grants unto Congress the Power to pass general laws and further requires each of the several States to acknowledge the Official Acts of the other States, the following Act:

Congress hereby affirms that the first Official Act of any of the several States is the formation of that State by adoption of a State Constitution, wherein has been recognized the individual and unalienable Rights of the Citizens of said State. Congress further declares that by joining The Union, each State cedes certain authority to Congress and binds itself to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.

Congress, in accordance thereto, herewith declares that any and all laws contrary to this Act are null and void, whether previously enacted federal laws, existing laws of any State or laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations of any Political Subdivision thereof.

Any and all criminal convictions exclusively for the possession of arms are herewith declared null and void, and all governmental bodies and courts are ordered to release any persons in custody for the same, and to expunge any record of related arrest, detention, conviction, or plea, excepting those convictions which also involved the use of arms in the commission of another criminal act. Any crime, such as criminal trespass or disorderly conduct, which would not have been charged had the person not been in possession of arms, is included in those which are herewith null and void. It is the intent of Congress to fully acknowledge the Citizens’ Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, and to ensure that no person shall be held to have committed any criminal act whatsoever by the mere possession or carrying of arms in any place generally open to the public, whether public property or private property open to the public.

Congress herewith takes for itself, exclusively, the regulation of the possession of arms by the Citizens of these United States, and recognizes the States’ authority to determine criminal penalties for the unlawful use of said arms. Arms are defined as those man-portable tools, constructs, and material usable for defensive purposes, including but not limited to rifles, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, knives, clubs, and the like useful for both offensive and defensive purposes, and those items like helmets, vests, boots, gloves, and the like which are designed and used primarily to limit the effectiveness of attacks upon a person. Arms do not include ordnance, such as heavy guns, ships of war, self-propelled guns, cannons, or any other device or mechanism which is incapable of being carried or operated by any single individual, nor any explosive device or contrivance which is not, in its use, held by the user.

Nothing in this law or any provision of the Constitution of the United States or any of the several States shall prevent the passage of laws penalizing the use of arms in the willful commission of felonious acts, either to facilitate such acts, or to prevent others from defending against such acts.

Congress herewith notes that the following State Constitutions acknowledge the right for citizens to Keep and to Bear arms, specifically for the purposes of individual self defense:
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Congress further notes that the following State Constitutions acknowledge the right of citizens to protect their property: California, Colorado, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah,

In any criminal action involving the use of arms against another, the defense of self, home, others, or property is an affirmative defense, which must be overcome by evidence of criminal intent or negligence of the accused, and persons found to be acting in a criminal capacity are prohibited from sustaining claims for injury as a result of their intended victims' use of arms in the defense of life and/or property.

No state or political subdivision thereof shall bar the ownership or possession of useful arms in any public place, or in any private place open for business to the general public, excepting prisons, jails, and courtrooms, excepting as a specific penalty for criminal acts upon conviction, nor prevent any person from keeping arms within their separate place of residence for defensive purposes unless previously found guilty of a felonious crime of violence against another. In the case of firearms, no law shall mandate that such arms be unloaded if carried within the reasonable control of the individual, including pistols and revolvers in holsters designed to both restrain the weapon and provide ready access to the bearer.

Henceforth, no State or political subdivision thereof shall assess any fee, license, or tax upon the ownership of arms. Any and all costs for the registration of such arms shall be paid from the general funds, and not by the owners of said arms. All federal registrations, licensing schemes, taxes, fees, and the like presently required by statute or rule are herewith repealed. No tax, other than an excise tax on the commercial manufacture of firearms and ammunition for interstate or international commerce shall be assessed. Such taxes shall not exceed five percent of the cost of said firearm or the bullet of any ammunition, whether sold as a ready-to-fire cartridge or reloading component.

Monday, September 27, 2010

The Oath and the Constitution

One has to wonder... when an elected official or even a lowly E-1 being inducted into the Military takes their oath of office, promising fealty to the Constitution, how can they in good conscience later state that only the Courts may decide whether a law (or action) is "constitutional"? (And yes, I intended to use a lower-case "c" there.)

Recent reports from the Congressional Campaign Trails of candidates promising to cite the provision of the Constitution authorizing laws have been met with disdain by others.

If only despots push for greater and greater POWER, usurping such until forced to relinquish it, then our Congress, our State Legislatures, the bureaucrats that promulgate "rules" for us to follow are, for the most part, would-by tyrants. They act with the implicit cooperation of the Judiciary, which does not reign them in, to the reduction of our individual freedom.

Even more distressing is this: citizens who wish the freedom of others be restricted put them into office: they ignore the lessons of history at their own peril.

Think. Of what use is an oath if one cannot define it? The Constitution is what it is. It can be read for its clear, plain, and most obvious meaning and MUST be interpreted literally. Our government tell us that "ignorance of the law is no excust..."

It is we who should be telling them. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as are the treaties and the federal laws that are made as the Constitution directs and allows.

Should there be a treaty that infringes on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms... it is null and void on its face, because such a treaty purports to restrict and uninfringable Right. Likewise, laws which do the same are also void.

It is past time for We, The People to assert ourselves against our oppressive governments at all levels, petitioning for redress of one particular grievance: the fact that they have overstepped their authority, we're mad as Hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!

Monday, July 19, 2010

Watching this video ( ) offers a glimpse into the psyche of at least one cop.

Note the nightstick on the cop's hip as he comes into frame at the 45 second mark. The handle on that thing closely (much too closely, methinks) resembles something one would find at a fetish shop.

Is someone overcompensating?

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Old McDonald Had a... gun?

Now that the Supreme Court's ruling is finally out on the 2nd Amendment, it's time to really incorporate the Constitution.

Imagine a nation where the actual words of the Constitution, and their original, plain and simple meaning actually drove our various states' legislative processes, as well as the courts' interpretation thereof.

Imagine a nation where each state recognized the official acts of the other states.

Imagine a nation where our citizens actually received equal protection under the law, even protection from oppressive governments.

Would the first official act of each state, the adoption of a State Constitution, be recognized by the other states?

Would the Rights of the Citizens, as recognized in those documents, then be given equal weight across all of the states?

If the answer to these questions is "yes", then the combined language of the various 2nd Amendment declarations from all fifty states would then be merged together, recognized by the states (and the federal government), and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would be expanded to its greatest level.

In similar fashion, the Right to speak, to peaceably assemble, to petition for redress, to be free from unreasonable search or seizure, to be compensated for takings, to defend one's life, to rebel against slavery in any form: these Rights would be equally enforced at their greatest scope resulting in maximum freedom for the individual.

In a nation where the governments received their Powers from the consent of the governed, the citizen is to remain the ultimate "sovereign"... not in anarchy or abuse of his neighbor, but definitely in control of his government. When the founding documents of a Government recognize a Right, that Right must never be abridged.

Keeping and Bearing Arms must not be infringed.

Murder, robbery, intimidation to prevent others from exercising their Rights... when facilitated with a firearm or any other weapon: these are the acts which the people, through their governments, may prohibit and punish, not the mere act of possession.

A firearm is a tool. Like an axe, a hammer, or even a printing press, it can be used for good or for evil. In like manner, the possession of a tool should never be illegal, only an act may be illegal, and if the act includes the use of any dangerous tool, the punishment of the law can and should be more severe, for the use shows a disregard, not only for the victim's enjoyment of property, but for the victim's life.