Sunday, March 17, 2013

Thank you, Mr.Ong.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Because it is my right.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The right.

I fell into a bit of a Liberal think trap yesterday with my post about Joe Biden.

For the record, I want you to know that it doesn't matter if the argument is made for AR-15 or not, it is our RIGHT to own them.  Rights do not have to be justified; they simply are.  And before I forget to post this, the second amendment does not give me that right, the second amendment recognizes that right pre-exists and protects that right from the government.

But don't take my word for it, take the word of those who were there.  

We can start with St. George Tucker.  Tucker was a Revolutionary War veteran, attorney, and later a U.S. District Court judge who wrote of the second amendment:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." 1

He further elaborated:

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." 1

In a letter to John Cartwright Thomas Jefferson writes:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; " 2

Noah Webster

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." 3

Tench Coxe 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." 4
For those who would argue that arms are only for Militia, Tench writes:

"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. The 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." 5

The militias were not intended solely to defend America against foreign enemies, but against the tyranny of their own government!


The argument that the second amendment no longer applies because our forefathers couldn't have imagined the changes in technology that produced modern firearms is absolute balderdash in the face of Tench's statement above where he says that "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of the American." 

 "But wait!" you cry, "Our Forefathers never thought something like a machine gun would exist!"

The founders of our nation never could have imagined the invention of the radio or television or the advent of cults that call for cutting your testicles off while waiting for a spaceship to carry you from the earth, but we afford these the freedoms of press and religion.  If the constitution can grow and change as needed to guarantee rights to all in some areas, why not all areas?

Stop asking me why I need an assault weapon.  I deny the existence of such an object.  I will, however, use DEFENSE weapons as it is my RIGHT to do so.

We don't NEED a lot of things yet we have them.  We don't NEED much more than a sharpened flint and a dry cave, so why do we have nice homes? The fastest posted speed limit (that I know of) in the US is 85 MPH, so why do we NEED vehicles capable of travelling faster than 85?  Rosa Parks didn't NEED to sit in the front of the bus.


1) St. George Tucker's Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference, to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia (1803)

2) Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Cartwright. From Monticello 5 June 1824 

3) An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

4) Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1

5) Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Monday, March 11, 2013

Joe Biden is misguided at best.

I'm sure many of you have heard VP Joe Biden's "advice" recently regarding self defense at home.  If not, here is a video.

Where do we begin?

I believe that we should start with one of the most irresponsible statements I've ever heard, "Just walk out on the balcony.... and fire two blasts outside the house."

Really, Joe?  Just fire blindly into the night?  No worries about the payload of lead or where it will go? That violates the most fundamental rules of firearms safety. (Google "Celebratory Gunfire")  And why fire both barrels, Joe?  Shouldn't you keep one round in reserve just in case the enemy isn't frightened by shots you're not firing at him or her?

But wait, it's gets "better."

The shotgun on the right is what Joe says is OK.  

Let's examine that. 

Given my experience as a shooting instructor, all the data I've read, and having been involved with firearms before it was legal for me to own one, I would venture to guess that most people in the industry would recommend standard pressure 2 3/4 inch 00 buck shot shells for the 12 gauge when it comes to home defense.

One shell from this firearm delivers 9 .33 caliber pellets at an advertised velocity 1325 FPS (feet per second); muzzle energy from that shell would be 1894 Ft lbs.

Pretty devastating.  Of course Joe just wants you to fire it in the air.

I want to take a side trip for a moment.

  The machine pistol on the left is a no-no for Joe and other "anti-gun" types. 

The pistol is a very low recoiling Scarab Skorpion vz 61 in .32 ACP caliber.  

Each round from this weapon is moving around 925 FPS and delivers 123 Ft lbs of energy.

It is easy to shoot and, with practice, can put several rounds in a tight group at 21 feet with a quick squeeze of the trigger.  

Joe says that is bad.  Joe doesn't want you to be able to shoot multiple rounds with one pull of a trigger.  Joe doesn't even want you to be able to pull the trigger manually and get off several shots in quick succession. 

Joe doesn't know what he's talking about because in the same breath he advocates doing something far more "powerful."  

Have you figured it out yet?  You've got all the clues you need.  

That's right!  A single 12 gauge shotgun blast with 00 buck shot is more powerful than getting hit with 9 rounds of .32 ACP AT THE SAME TIME!

Joe, if you think full autos are bad and high capacity semi-autos are bad, why do you think it's OK to put 9 rounds down range with a single pull of the trigger?

Your belief system is flawed.

"Just get a double barrel shotgun."

2 shells, Joe?!?  She just fired blindly into the night, remember?  What is she to do now?  Did she bring extra ammunition with her?  Is she trained in tactical reload?  How much ground can the enemy cover in the few seconds it takes her to reload, Joe?

"You don't need an AR-15, it's harder to aim, it's harder to use and you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself."

Joe, I'm not as sexist as you are and would never tell a woman what she can and cant's shoot, but I do know a bit about body mass and physics.  Most women do not have the body mass or strength of most men. Yes, there are exceptions; I have met some women who would whip me in a fair fight.  Some even in an unfair fight.

But I digress.

Take a look a the following videos and check out Joe's belief system.


Ok, this one is a little more serious.

And this fellow makes a great argument for the handicapped out there.

Bottom line: Unlike Joe Biden, the AR-15 is accurate and effective.