Why we have the Second Amendment

I recently participated in a discussion about why we have the second amendment and how to support gun rights. As was pointed out in that discussion, the second amendment was added to make sure that people have the right and the ability to defend themselves from tyrannical governments.

In 2002, the JPFO published a list of genocides in the 20th century that have occurred in countries with gun control.

# 1915 - 1917 Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered;
# 1929 - 1953 Soviet Union, 20 million people that opposed Stalin were murdered;
# 1933 - 1945 Nazi occupied Europe, 13 million Jews Gypsies and others that opposed Hitler were murdered;
# 1927 - 1949 China, 10 million pro communists;
# 1948 - 1952 China, 20 million anti communists;
# 1960 - 1981 Guatemala, 100,000 Mayan Indians Murdered;
# 1971 - 1979 Uganda, 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
# 1975 - 1979 Cambodia, 2 million educated persons murdered.
# 1994 Rwanda 800,000 Tutsi's murdered.
# 1992 - 1995 Bonsia 200,000 Muslims murdered.

When this is pointed out to many people on the left of the political spectrum they respond with "That could not happen here."

But it has happened here, with the Native Americans and members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Gun Control laws in the south were often aimed at prevent African Americans from being able to defend themselves, enabling lynchings.

And for things that could never happen here, point out the number of things that were said that could never happen here that after September 11th, have happened here. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. Warrentless Wiretapping.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

The Gun Show Loophole

The Washington Post has an editorial today about Virginia having an opportunity to close the "gun show loophole." I have been to several gun shows in Virginia, as has my wife. We have both purchased guns at gun shows and always went through the exact same process as when we have bought guns in stores. In fact, I have never seen a person at a gun show in the Commonwealth who has purchased a gun without a background check.

Why is it that the anti-gun advocates are so obsessed with the gun show loophole?

They claim 35% of guns purchased at gun shows are purchased from unlicensed dealers. This may be the case, I don't know, but I do know one statistic, only 0.7% of guns used by criminals is obtained at gun shows. The same survey states that 8.3% of guns used by criminals were obtained from retail gun stores. All of the retail purchases needed background checks. Clearly the background check process is not perfect, but there is not a significant flow of guns from gun shows into the hands of criminals.

Virginia Restaurant Concealed Carry Ban Petition

As I have been reminded by a reader, everyone should sign the petition to repeal the restaurant ban.

Virginia Restaurant Concealed Carry Ban

The VCDL reports that Virginia SB 1035 has passed out of committee. This bill would repeal the ban on carrying a concealed handgun in a restaurant that has an ABC license (can serve alcohol on premises). In the report is some quotes that illustrate what is wrong with the reactionary thinking and lack of analysis by many of our politicians.

Senator Marsh took the cake, however. He said that if a concealed handgun permit holder came into a restaurant with the intent to "pop" someone in the restaurant, and the permit holder couldn't find someone to declare that he has a concealed gun, he might just go ahead and kill his victim anyhow, without notifying the restaurant of his concealed gun.

Senator Cuccinelli had fun with that one, saying, "So, Senator Marsh, the permit holder, determined to commit murder, would not do so because he was worried about getting charged with a Class 3 misdemeanor?"

Marsh just sat there with a blank look on his face.

This is an argument that I hear again and again from people wanting to ban guns. If we let people carry guns legally, they'll commit murder. Well folks, I think Senator Cuccinelli has it right, if you are going to commit murder, a couple of misdemeanors won't stop you.

Another example of backwards thinking came from a representative from the Alcoholic Beverage Commission:

We are concerned that this is a public safety issue... What if someone carrying concealed has their gun taken away from the by a drunken customer and used to shoot someone.

Um.... It is currently legal to open carry in a restaurant serving alcohol in Virginia. So people carrying concealed handguns might have them seized by drunks, but people carrying openly won't?

Think of the children, burn the books and games.

I don't understand book burnings. If you don't want your children to have a book or game, then don't get it for them. It seems that people including Rev. Richard Patrick, don't want to take responsibility for actually engaging with their children and discussing what they read and see.

I'm a parent, I have a 3 1/2 year old and a 9 month old. I know how busy parents are, but being busy doesn't change the fact that I am still responsible for teaching my children.

I had plenty of exposure to violent books, video games, and movies when I was growing up, and I didn't turn into a thug. I wonder if it possibly had something to do with having a stable family with parents who were engaged with me.

Getting businesses to take security seriously

Over at the Armchair Generalist is a post about security chemical facilities. The DHS is requiring 7,000 facilities to improve the security of their chemical storage and manufacturing.

Having worked in computer security in the past, I know that most business don't take security seriously until after they have an incident. Even then it isn't all that important. The problem is that most people don't think about security when making purchasing decisions.

Since security failures often effect people other than the producer and consumer of a companies products. With the chemical facilities, it may impact many other people that don't have anything to do with the facility or their products.

The threat of lawsuits could convince some companies that they need to improve security, but as we've seen with the airlines and 9/11, the government is too willing to bailout companies with poor security when there is a terrorist attack.

Gun ban in Seattle

Over at The High Road they are reporting that Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle has issued an executive order baning guns in the city.

Previous on December 23, 2007, Mayor Nickels office released a press statement that:

the City of Seattle [...], with funding from the Joyce Foundation

With funding from the Joyce Foundation, very interesting. First of all, why is a private organization funding a city event? Secondly, the Joyce Foundation want to end gun violence, by ending the right for american citizens to keep and bear arms.

According to the Joyce Foundation's mission statement they are focused on issues related to the area around the great lakes, so what are they doing in Seattle? And who exactly is the Joyce Foundation. Well among some of the groups they support include the Violence Policy Center, one of the most anti-gun groups in Washington, D.C. (and interestingly enough, the holder of Federal Firearms License in the District of Columbia). And who do you think was on the board of the Joyce Foundation? None other than Mr. Change himself, Barack Obama.

I guess if you want to see more total gun bans, in blatant disregard of the Second Amendment, then Obama's your man.

What is wrong with Washington D.C.'s government?

Washington D.C.'s government is a joke. Recently, in the name of cutting down on crime, they decided to restrict access to certain parts of the city to people with a "legitimate reason". Is the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" a legitimate reason? Does anyone in the D.C. government know what the constitution says?

Bailouts

Why is it that the government keeps bailing out failing corporations? Whether it is Chrysler, the Savings and Loans, Airlines, or Bear Sterns? And now Congress is suggesting bailing out people who took out mortgages that they could not afford?

Since deregulation the Airline Industry as a whole has not been profitable, having lost a total of $13 billion over approximately 30 years. Yet time and time again, the government has bailed out the airlines. If the airlines had been left alone, many would have failed and the market would have corrected itself, but since the government is artificially propping up failing business, they don't change, knowing Uncle Sam will be there to get them out of a jam. This has kept airlines from reworking the basic business model so that they can make a profit.

Looking at the so called mortgage crisis, talk once again turns to the government bailing out institutions and individuals that made bad decisions.

Mortgage Lenders (such as Fannie Mae) made bad assumptions about the economy and the housing market and the rate of default. Why did they make such bad assumptions? For one thing, they figured that they would be able to reduce some of the risk by packaging loans into bundles (bonds) and selling the loans. The lenders then told the investors in these bonds, that they has certain risk associated with then and a certain interest rate, but didn't tell the investors what the model was that they used to come to these conclusions.

The investors (such as Bear Stearns) didn't question the lenders, they assumed that since the lenders had been right in the past, they would still be right, and bought these loans without proper investigation, or any contractual obligations to insure that the lenders packaged the loans correctly and modeled for situations such as the housing bubble bursting. Everyone, knew that there was a housing bubble, and it would eventually burst, but the investors figured that they would be able to make there profits and not be effected by a burst. They assumed a risk, in exchange for the potential of higher rates of returns. Professional investors should understand this, but in reality, professional investors saw only upside potential and reacted by seeing other professional investors putting money into these securities, and they didn't want to miss the boat.

Why should these investors now be bailed out by the government for making a poor decision? This will only reinforce this bad behavior.

Now lets look at the people who took out loans that they couldn't afford and are now facing foreclosure. Should they be bailed out? The mortgage documents that they signed clearly spelled out the risks associated with potential rate increases. They knew what there income and expense were (or should have). They could easily figure out what would happen if the interest rates rose, they even had a lawyer present (the closing attorney) to advise them. So why did they enter into the bad contracts. Again, they looked only at the upside potential (we can always resell the house for more money) and they saw their neighbors purchasing larger and larger houses and decided that they didn't want to miss the boat.

Once again, if the government bails them out, it will only reinforce bad behavior.

But what if the government doesn't bail anyone out? Will the economy collapse? I think not. For one thing, the investors will be much more willing to renegotiate the mortgages to make them more affordable to people who really can repay their loans. The profit won't be as high, but it will still be greater than if the mortgage is allowed to go into foreclosure. The people who took out these loans would rather pay a higher rate than they initially assumed that they would, but get to keep their house. Over time things will balance out, and everyone will have learned to look at the downside as well as the upside of contracts in the future.

Let people and corporations take the risks, and let them fail when things don't go right. In the short term there may be some (significant) pain, but in the long term the economy will be healthier for it.

I heard a story on the radio the morning of April 30th about contaminated Heparin and how the wife of one of the victims realized that we are not safe and the government will not guarantee our protection. In particular she said

Quote:

"we have a false sense of security" in a land where people expect to be protected and safe.

When did we come expect the government to protect us? Why is she blaming the government for failing to protect her, but not blaming Baxter International, the company that manufactured the drug and ordered the components from a disreputable supplier?

This is an another example of people expecting to live in a Nanny State.