Rabid Centrist

Anti-second amendment lobbyists celebrate "gun-free zones"

2010-01-07T12:06:00.000-08:00

After reading the January 6 article, "Anti Gun Groups Applaud Keeping College Campuses “Gun Free Zones” ...And Killing Zones", about the back-slapping anti-second amendment lobby's celebration of rights infringement on college campuses, it seemed a good time to consider what drives them. Our friends over at Second Amendment Freedom-Firearms Rights draw attention to the killing fields created by "gun-free zones" described earlier by Dr. John Lott, Genie Jennings, and others.

The Bradys and their ilk apparently are so deluded they no longer care about tyranny and don't recognize their own contribution. (And they are supported and encouraged by Soros, Bloomberg, and other wealthy backers with their own agendas).

I live in an area which is a sanctuary for aliens, legal and otherwise. They have brought the violence they sought to escape with them (families of MS-13 members, for example, are always accompanied by their gangbanger relatives). A growing number of immigrants have come from countries where women have no rights and wives are collected like farm animals for breeding. They have brought their misogynist culture with them to the U.S.

The RKBA is more important than ever, as our founders wisely predicted. I can't explain why anti-second amendment activists apparently believe they are carrying a banner of safety more important than our rights, other than perhaps they or those they care about have been involved in traumas where a firearm was present and someone's post-traumatic engram is driving it. They seem to honestly think that twisting the meaning of the second amendment to suit their agenda is to be desired, short-sighted and wrong though it obviously is.

These minions will stop at nothing to satisfy their wealthy supporters under the guise of "public health" and their unholy alliance with anti-U.S. organizations including the OSI, IANSA and the UN, all of which seek to disarm ordinary citizens and undercut the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever happened to patriotic sentiments like the state of New Hampshire's motto, "live free or die", and Patrick Henry's impassioned statement, "give me liberty or give me death"? Have we turned into a country of timid politically-correct, deluded Stepford wives who welcome global oppression and the demise of our constitution? I don't think so.

HR 45 - Blair Holt - Unconstitutional Gun Registration

2009-02-15T15:32:00.000-08:00

HR 45 - ‘‘Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009" is designed to require registration of firearms and enforce new laws already proven not to reduce crime. It is similar to laws enacted by Stalin and Hitler, and takes a giant step towards an unconstitutional police state in the U.S.

As usual, the new congress seeks to abridge our right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Anti-second amendment forces feel empowered by the Obama-Biden election, since both of these individuals are extremely anti-gun and have spent considerable energy in the past banning guns and limiting citizens' associated rights.

This bill is the work of wealthy bullies George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and The Joyce Foundation. Their minions and operatives, including Rebecca Peters of IANSA, have dedicated their lives to disarming law-abiding citizens of the world.

The Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, and top drawer university researchers have determined that gun control laws do not work, even if they weren't unconstitutional. ABC's John Stossel reported that the idea that gun control laws work to reduce crime is a myth.
The bottom line, however, is that such Stalin-like laws are unconstitutional, and should stay that way. FBI statistics show that most violent crimes are not committed with firearms, and that 90% of those who are killed by guns are criminals themselves. These are not the law-abiding gun owners who own most of the guns in the U.S.

Further, illegal aliens perpetrate a significant amount of crime in the U.S. according to government statistics. It's simply not politically correct to point it out because of the pro-illegal immigration lobby.

I really don't want to see the U.S. collapse over a tyrannical government infringing rights. People are really angry over loss of other constitutional rights, and a growing number are coming to see that the Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the rest.

A world dictatorship with huge numbers of unarmed peons and a few elites is not what our founders had in mind. We need to retain and export our freedom and liberty to other nations--not import their dictatorships and fascism.

This bill has the mark of tyranny, and tyranny is what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other great American leaders warned us about. It is the first major step on a road to totalitarianism. We need to remind our elected officials of this. If they sponsor or pass it, they are acting against the U.S. Constitution, which they swore to uphold.

RKBA in an Obama administration

2008-11-05T04:31:00.000-08:00

The people have spoken and we have a new president-elect. Although our right to keep and bear arms was rarely mentioned outside of his campaign website, those of us who deeply value the U.S. Constitution recognize that we are in a never-ending battle to retain and regain our rights.

An interesting twist on the new Chief Executive is his advocacy for a "Civilian Security Force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military. View the speech where he rolled out his idea for such a body here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

What role might the RKBA community have in such a body? We will have to wait and see, since I find no evidence of any details being unveiled. What I do know is that, with a democratic sweep of the White House and both houses of congress, we are likely to see a wave of proposed gun-ban legislation.

This is no time to rest--our freedom and liberty are always under attack.

Election 2008 and the Second Amendment

2008-09-06T21:49:00.000-07:00

As we close in on election time, it's useful to examine what the candidates are saying about the Second Amendment. We've already seen that, despite the Supreme Court's narrow ruling in favor of an individual's right to keep and bear working arms in the home for self-protection (see DC v. Heller), leaders are continuing to defy the Constitution and act as petty dictators. For example, both Fenty of Washington, DC, and Daley of Chicago are fighting the ruling--and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights--and making and enforcing rules and laws that are clearly illegal. They have rejected our founders' and framers' wisdom in favor of their own misguided agenda.

The 5-4 decision favoring Heller should have been unanimous, if the justices were all doing their jobs. Instead, 4 of them chose to toss our heritage to the wind in favor of enabling dictators to operate at all levels of U.S. government.

Amazingly, Barack Obama and Joe Biden continue to support infringing our rights and seek to undermine our right to keep and bear arms. Biden brags that he was an innovator in abridging rights: He actually pushed to ban what today are the most popular sporting rifles in the world before Clinton picked up on it in 1994. Although the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" was an abject failure--and unconstitutional, both Obama and Biden want to reinstate it and make it permanent.

John McCain and Sarah Palin both support our Second Amendment rights, and trust the people to act responsibly with respect to firearms. Rather than layer on more unenforceable laws that do nothing to stop criminals and only burden and/or abridge rights of the law-abiding, they seek to make sure we retain our right to self-protection.

Self-defense is one of the most basic drives in life. It is a natural right, that comes from our 'Creator,' however one interprets that term. Please go to the polls in November and vote your conscience. For educational purposes, here are brief excerpts from the Obama and McCain election websites:

Obama (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement)
"As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment ... Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent ..."

McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm)
"John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. ..."

Gun Control Misinformation in the Denver Post

2007-12-16T18:47:00.000-08:00

The Denver Post featured an anonymous opinion piece advocating more gun control--which provided misinformation! [The misinformation has now been removed and noted at the bottom of the article.] Read the [revised] article and the comments at:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_7716133

The article calls for the renewal of the failed "1994 Assault Weapons Ban," which was signed into law even though statisics suggested it would make no difference--since criminals, by definition, ignore laws. After it was deemed an abject failure after ten years, it was non-renewed.

The blaring error, however, is where the writer states that Maryland passed a similar ban at the state level in 2007. In fact, the proposed ban never made it out of committee, because Maryland lawmakers recognized that the law would be both ineffective and unconstitutional.

The XM-15 rifle mentioned is one of the most popular target shooting and varmint guns used by recreational shooters and farmers. And most of the features included in the 1994 ban were either cosmetic; for the safety of the user; or made them accessible to women, the disabled, the elderly, and people of short stature.

As one of the commenters noted, the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Chiefs of Police do not support this ban. The strongest supporter is the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which includes foreigners from dictatorships and monarchies.

Mental health professionals have written exhaustively about copycats, who jump on the bandwagon when any crime is committed. These incidents occur in clusters, especially near holidays, as lunatics seek fame and express their anger towards a society where they've felt like outsiders. The fact is that lunatics and criminals will always be with us. Disarming ourselves is insanity.

Prohibition doesn't work. It simply creates a lucrative black market that cartels are delighted to take over. If guns are banned, only criminals will have them. Compared to the total number of guns owned by private citizens, the number used for crimes is insignificant.

Wall Street Journal on gun control--the far left

2007-10-05T11:09:00.000-07:00

Response to "Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill" by David Rogers, Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2007.

What makes this issue frustrating for me as a citizen is that even with 32 innocents dead at VA Tech, we focus on gathering information and causing undue burden to many millions of law-abiding citizens--and unnecessarily restrict their rights rather than facing the real issues head-on.

We ignore what happened just a few miles away from VA Tech when a similar mass-murderer entered another "gun-free" zone at Appalachian School of Law. Two students ran to their cars, and returned with handguns, and as soon as the perpetrator saw a gun pointed at him, he dropped his own. Only 3 died. The police arrived almost 5 minutes later. Imagine how many more would have died had these students not armed themselves and this lunatic had proceeded across campus in his deadly rampage. But no one tells that story, or the truth about how "gun free zones" attract such cowards.

Gun control does little but place undue burden on the innocent or deny them their only reasonable means of self-protection. Our founders, both in the Bill of Rights and all of their writings surrounding the crafting of our constitution, clearly indicated that U.S. citizens have the individual right to keep and bear arms. And that means for self-protection from aggression of any kind, as well as in response to tyranny.

We only argue about this now due to the acts of activist 20th century judges with political motives. Many elderly people have a gun for family protection they obtained in the service many years ago, or which was passed down through the family. My father lived in a remote rural area and experienced numerous occasions where he simply held a gun without pointing it and aggressive individuals calmed down and chose not to enter his home uninvited.

A recent London Times article reported the elderly in the U.K., where firearms restrictions prevent them from owning reasonable means of self-protection, are increasingly helpless victims of home invasions. New gun ban and gun control laws being proposed in the U.S. unfairly target the poor, elderly, women, people with disabilities, and people of short stature--whose only reasonable means of self-defense is a firearm. And worse, the various "assault weapons" bans seek to criminalize the very features that make firearms useable by this group. Only a linebacker has the size and strength to operate a gun without these features. The government has banned or limited sound suppression, which would protect individuals' ears--and then closes down ranges where law-abiding citizens enjoy shooting sports because of the noise! This insanity needs to stop.

Another problem is the very idea of "mental illness." The DSM-IV, arguably the bible of the mental health profession, is based on voting by politically selected opinion leaders--not science. Women who suffered post-partum depression or hormonally-based depression in menopause, or men who suffered due to a natural mid-life crisis or post-traumatic stress from their participation in war are not statistically more likely to commit crimes than those who never reported symptoms. In fact, it's likely that most people never report symptoms at all, out of fear they will be listed as mentally ill by mental-health witch doctors.

When most people were around guns all the time, kids routinely learned to shoot and care for guns when they were little. When kids had rifle shooting sports in the schools, no one paid much attention to guns. Kids carried them on school buses.

But now we've taken a frighteningly extremist turn, and little boys can't exercise their natural tendency to make sense of their world at war by drawing guns, tanks, and military artwork in school. This very cathartic and natural behavior is squelched by anti-gun extremism based on unfounded fear. Our children are losing their constitutional rights and being raised in a culture of fear.

Congress needs to drop the entire issue of gun bans and gun control and bring back gun sports to schools. Our founders trusted citizens to act properly. This proposed legislation makes our own leaders seem increasingly like those of fascist regimes. Notice in those countries where guns are banned that the criminals and corrupt government officials still have them, and use them to harm and kill innocent defenseless citizens.

Some of the anti-Second Amendment groups who seek to further limit or even destroy legal access to guns by law-abiding citizens, or fund such efforts, include the Brady Campaign, Rainbow PUSH Coalition (Jesse Jackson), the Million Mom March, Protest Easy Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Americans for Democratic Action, the League of Women Voters, the AARP, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, the Legal Community Against Violence, Ceasefire, and the American Hunters and Shooters Association.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police is one of the most dangerous organizations--comprised of people from dictatorships and countries that already banned gun ownership, they are extensively cited by U.S. researchers in all sectors, although the Fraternal Order of Police, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police do not share their strident anti-Second Amendment views. These well-meaning but misguided individuals don't realize the repercussions their public policy has on law-abiding citizens, for whom a gun is the only reasonable means of self-protection.

Another unspoken reality--the law of supply and demand will prevail. Guns are easy to manufacture and distribute. If we limit access to or ban guns, crime organizations will quickly take over the lucrative business of manufacturing and distributing them--to criminals! Criminals and corrupt government officials will always have them, as will celebrities. Law-abiding citizens are the ones who lose their constitutionally-guaranteed rights--and potentially their lives.

This legislation needs to be dropped altogether. The National Rifle Association, Brady Campaign, and legislators potentially "seizing the moment" following the VA Tech shootings amounts to a nation-wide amygdala hi-jack. It is nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response combined with misdirected opportunism. Whatever happened to a society built on trust?

WSJ article on gun control

2007-09-22T16:38:00.000-07:00

I submitted a letter to the editor (LTE) of the Wall Street Journal in response to "Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill" by David Rogers, Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2007; Page A6
located at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119033829426334720.html?%20mod=politics_primary_hs and if they choose not to print it, I'll blog it.

Something I did not mention in my LTE: Notice that Rogers cites the views of a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) rather than looking to the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP)!

Why is that, Mr. Rogers? We're discussing our own U.S. internal policy, based on our own Constitution. You're publishing the opinions of foreigners and people who have access to armed body guards, discussing how to disarm more law-abiding American citizens.

What if "at-risk" kids were treated the way kids once were--taught to shoot safely as kids and that firearms are useful tools for self-protection and sport, and given opportunities to pursue shooting sports if it interested them?

Instead, they are raised in fear and guns are portrayed as evil. It just makes guns all the more alluring. I challenge politicians to set up a program that encourages young inner-city kids to become proficient with firearms. Air rifle would be fine for this. It builds discipline, is fun, and could get them to the olympics or into college.

Instead of looking to the flustered international community for their misguided bias (as if brainstorming bureaucrats can solve a problem they don't even understand)--why don't we draw on our own Constitution and the wisdom of our own Founders and be an example?

Response to WUSA Gun Rally report

2007-09-11T10:58:00.000-07:00

This is a response to the 9NewsNOW article titled "Gun Protesters take Aim at District Heights Gun Shop" by Audrey Barnes, 8/28/2007 at
http://www.wusa9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=62239

So 400 guns used in Prince George's County crimes over the course of 10 years(!) originated at Realco. The buyers of these guns went through onerous, burdensome Brady checks at Realco--which have been proven to cost a lot for very little in return. They waste commercial, police, and citizen resources to provide a "feel good" service with few results and are mostly intimidating to innocent customers who simply wish to protect themselves or participate in recreational shooting sports.

We don't know how many of these guns were actually stolen or sold later by other individuals or shops that don't provide these checks, so we point to the original seller--that *did* perform the required checks so the guns could be traced back to them!

Government actions have led to the closure of 79% of gun dealers since 1994 so there are fewer places for law-abiding citizens to purchase these useful tools. No wonder the few remaining outlets are the source of all the guns in highly populated metropolitan areas!

As usual, we hear the minority--the traumatized families of those who were the targets of crime and the people who are riding the emotional and political appeal of feel-good legislation that infringes on constitutionally-guaranteed rights and does nothing to actually solve the real problems.

In fact, it only puts more innocent, law-abiding people at the effect of criminals. What if police and lawmakers worked with citizens instead of passing more laws that criminals will ignore that will only burden the law-abiding and limit their access to tools of self-defense?

Our Founding Fathers knew that the vast majority of citizens could be depended upon to help their neighbors and communities and trusted them to exercise their rights responsibly. They also knew that a very small percentage of sociopaths and lunatics would always be present in any society.

Let's try something completely different. Let's bring back school shooting sports, and actually make air-rifle a bona fide sport in PG County schools. Young people can build self-esteem, focus, discipline, and act in the manner that young people did for many generations with no crime problem--and possibly prepare for the Olympics!

Instead of turning guns into alluring forbidden fruit, let's encourage learning firearm safety and have recreation that may draw more kids off the street. And let's stop turning more of our law-abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

Personality of anti-Second Amendment extremists

2007-09-07T23:06:00.000-07:00

What is it about human nature that predisposes a significant number of people never to examine new data once they've formed an opinion? Psychological instruments point to this phenomenon, which apparently is loosely predictable based on specific preferences or attributes such instruments identify. We see it in ideologues on both the far left and far right. And people apparently also self-select for roles.

The Brady Campaign is delighting in the VA Tech shooting report--seeing this as a "win." If you haven't read it, the task force made recommendations based on rhetoric in lieu of reason and ignored Virginia Governor Kaine's directive. And officials in DC and MD recently have tipped their hand--they also are in bed with the Bradys and Joshua Horwitz's Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. What makes these well-meaning people rigorously ignore facts in favor of emotional rhetoric? This is nothing short of a national amygdala hi-jack at the expense of individual rights--it will make the ignorant feel good so they can go to bed happy.

Thomas Jefferson, we hardly knew ye. How do we diffuse knowledge to those who close their eyes and cover their ears?

Gun rights and self defense

2007-09-03T00:49:00.000-07:00

I just re-read Classically Liberal's (CLS) blog, "When mass killers meet armed resistance," posted April 18, 2007. A colleague had sent me the link back in May. This article affected me in several ways. The daughter of my college best friend and roommate lost her life at Cho's hands at VA Tech on April 16, just two days earlier. Additionally, in February 2006, my mother was robbed by a home invader. And some years back, my 83-year-old great aunt was brutally raped at knifepoint and robbed by another home invader.

I currently live in a state where, if I have a gun in my car, I must keep it separate from the ammo, in the trunk of my car. And if it's a handgun, I can only legally transport it to/from a range or gunsmith. The law does not make a provision for stopping for a restroom or meal break (although my legislators assure me the police wouldn't enforce the law in those circumstances). Why not put it in writing, so law-abiding citizens like myself don't have to worry about it in the first place? Just a tiny intimidation--turning me into a criminal for exercising natural bodily functions.

And without so much as passing a law, as of August 1, 2007 my state requires its citizens to relinquish all of our medical records to the state police prior to purchasing a controlled firearm (any handgun and some long guns). We already have to wait more than a week for the onerous "Brady check" results. This means I spend an hour completing pages of complicated forms filled with small print and many tiny lines and boxes requiring my initials, checkmarks, or other information, arranged so I'm almost certain to miss something.

And then a store clerk has to review it all to make sure not one of those tiny boxes and lines is blank and ascertaining that I gave an acceptable answer! And, if any minor error is made by either party, you can bet the state police and/or BATFE will come knocking at their door (and mine). All this intimidation aimed at a law-abiding citizen who wants to protect her family and participate in some recreational target shooting, and a store clerk who just wants to make a living to support his family.

It is next to impossible to get a license to carry in my state, unless one regularly carries money, jewelry, or other valuable property for a business. Under our state law, a life is just not that valuable. Especially a woman's life. This is the state where the judge denied a woman a restraining order against her ex-husband, even gleefully belittling her in court. The ex-husband entered her workplace, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire.

I haven't located the source, but I've heard that another woman has been raped twice and the police still refuse to issue her a license to carry. This reminds me of the cynical pseudo-assertion I've heard that a woman found raped and strangled with her panty hose is morally superior to a woman explaining a bullet hole in her attacker's head.

An innocent traveler could break a law without realizing it if he or she simply crosses a state line. Of course, in my state, localities also like to pass their own even more restrictive laws, so the traveler just passing through a town or county could suddenly become an unintended criminal, subject to arrest and prison. (Watch "The Gang" if you really want to get a look at what can happen to innocent citizens when bureaucrats pursue them in witch-hunt fashion.) And yet, criminals don't follow laws they know exist. They don't care that it's illegal to murder or rape or molest children.

In the article "Self-protection is a matter of Choice," in Women and Guns magazine (May/June 2007), Genie Jennings, spokesperson for Second Amendment Sisters, has convincingly argued for "safety zones" rather than the failed "gun free zones" such as those found at VA Tech and other schools. Jennings advocates for training teachers, administrators, and adult students to be armed and ready to handle such emergencies. The article (and magazine) are well worth a read. All of my elderly relatives remember a time when schools had at least one shotgun on hand in case of trouble. They were a great deterrant, and they were only rarely used. In fact, most criminals who are simply shown a gun change their mind about continuing the illegal act.

I went to high school with a guy named Tracy Bridges, and wonder if it was he who saved lives that day at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA, mentioned in the article by CLS. Appalachian is just down the road from VA Tech. Bridges and Mikael Gross reportedly retrieved their guns from their cars and confronted Peter Odighizuwa, the mass murderer who had already killed 3 people. Odighizuwa dropped his gun when he was approached by the armed students, who held him until police finally arrived almost 5 minutes later. I imagine these heroes saved quite a few innocent lives. Yet, as CLS pointed out, the media mostly ignored or failed to mention the fact that armed students ended the bloodshed and saved countless lives.

Like CLS, I wondered what might have been the outcome if Bridges and Gross had been concealed carrying instead? Would it have stopped the killer's spree from beginning in the first place or perhaps after only one innocent human life had been lost?

I think Genie Jennings is right. We need safety zones. We also need to remember something our founders clearly recognized. Most law-abiding citizens will do the right thing. Most of us will help each other out and act in amazingly selfless ways in emergencies. Our founders counted on it. They understood that this is the basis of human society--the combination of basic human nature and trust.

Our founders guaranteed the individual right to bear arms in our Constitution. All of the writings of the period indicate that this referred to an individual right, and the 2004 Department of Justice report titled "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right" shows this was the indeed the founders' intended meaning. (Also see Karen MacNutt's July/August 2007 article "Parker vs. DC" in Women and Guns.) And, in the (hopefully) rare case it was needed, they could quickly form militias.

I remember as a child that women all seemed to know how to load and use a shotgun. And kids were exposed to guns very early. I was 5 when my father took me plinking for the first time. And fathers brought their service pistols back from WWII and Korea and kept them for home protection.

Today we are on a slippery slope. We are on the brink of losing our liberty--of undoing the magic created by our founders. Well-meaning but ignorant leaders want to disarm us and close down our local gunstores so we have no source of firearms. They believe this will somehow stop the hoodlums, the gangsters, the mentally ill, the sociopaths--the evil ones who would do us harm. However, we know these people have been among us since the beginning of time and they will not disarm.

And what is it about supply and demand that elected and appointed government officials just don't understand? Criminals are practically salivating--poised to quickly seize control of the firearms industry should it be bankrupted or run out of business if it becomes infeasible to implement processes required by misguided lawmakers--and supported by duped citizens who are ignorant of both the issues and their rights.

The Centers for Disease Control have found that gun control hasn't made a difference. In fact, it appears gun control laws may indirectly increase the availability of illegal guns to criminals while preventing law-abiding citizens from owning them for self-protection! Once we put the legal and lawful gun manufacturers and dealers out of business through silly, unworkable, and expensive requirements such as microcoding and chipping, the black market will quickly rise up to provide guns to criminals. That's how markets work. A nobel prize was awarded to the individual who recognized this!

The Second Amendment Foundation reported that due to the burden of the Brady checks, police spend even less time on the beat at an enormous cost to taxpayers. We ignore people like Cho with obvious problems and instead collect data on thousands or millions of people who will never use their guns for anything more than plinking or possibly warning criminals to back off.

The gun-grabbing is out of control, with some of the best and brightest actually believing gun control will stop violence. Since their strict gun ban was instituted, the United Kingdom has seen a growing problem of the elderly being attacked with no means of self-protection. And our own ignorant legislators are counting on flawed technological solutions that are unworkable.

I recommend something completely different. Let's bring back recreational shooting to the schools. Yes, you heard me right. I was traveling in France when I was 22 and saw porn magazines and postcards everywhere. At first I was shocked, and then I noticed the kids weren't even paying attention to it. It suddenly occurred to me--that's how my generation was with guns. We were around them all the time, and most of us at least learned basic safely rules and skills for an emergency.

When I was in elementary school, little boys routinely drew war planes, bombs, guns, tanks, and whatever they saw in their world in school. They got to cathartically and creatively deal with the dissonance of the morals and ethics they were learning with the realities of war, injustice, and hatred all around them. And they grew into productive adults!

There is no separate "gun culture." Guns were the tools of our freedom from the King of England, and guns first were used to keep blacks enslaved and later kept them safe from night riders in the southern US. Even Condoleezza Rice remembers her father protecting his family with a gun because the police just weren't going to help. Guns level the playing field for women, people of short stature, people with disabilities, and the elderly.

We need to undo most of our gun control laws. Dave Kopel goes a step further and argues that we need to spread the right to keep and bear arms to the international community. He cites Christopher J. Schmidt's article titled "An international right to keep and bear arms" in the February 2007 issue of the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, where Schmidt asserts the Second Amendment is one of the rights the international human rights community has resisted. We need to trust the people. Without trust by legislators and other government officials, the people don't trust in return. As parents, we need to stop the moralizing holier-than-thou attitude and model positive behaviors for our kids, including safe firearm use.

Kids who enjoy shooting sports can apply for college scholarships and compete in the olympics. Shooting sports require discipline, focus, and self-control.

I advocate for more guns in our society rather than less. I would like to see more school air rifle teams, "shall-issue" concealed carry in all states, Genie Jennings' "safety zones" model rolled out, and every law-abiding citizen receiving firearms safety training if they desire it.

Our founders warned us that we must have the means to protect ourselves against aggressors and tyrants. The legislators, judges, and bureaucrats themselves are moving closer to tyranny every day. We need to reverse this trend. Let's keep the U.S. experiment alive.