When Will We Get Back to the Constitution? (II)

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.”

What Ever Happened to the Tenth Amendment?

There are few people today who pound the drum about the Tenth Amendment and still fewer who have any idea what is says. In fact, in general few Americans get exercised about our Constitution at all. Precious few have read it and politicians increasingly avoid it like the plague. With all the excitement that TV offers these days, who has the time or inclination to read the Constitution or The Federalist Papers. We are an uninformed nation and most of that is our fault.

Quite a while back the late Francis Schaeffer made the point that Americans need two things to keep them placated: personal peace and affluence. Schaeffer hit a home run (back, back, back, back, and gone!) with that observation. In our individualism we believe that as long as things are relatively peaceful we’re good to go, especially if we have the requisite affluence to carry us along.

Of course, lately Americans have learned that they are bearing the burdens of bad ideas. We haven’t built an oil refinery on U.S. soil in thirty years. The politically correct social engineers bullied us into keeping our mouths shut (after all, who wants to destroy the planet?) about drilling in ANWR, Utah/Colorado, and offshore on the East and Left coasts and we let them. Neither “we the people” nor our elected representatives had the requisite manhood to stand up to the iron fist in the velvet glove.

But now Americans are disturbed about the affluence part of the equation. Some on radio and TV broadcasts are preaching doom and gloom, which just shows that they don’t know the first thing about economics and capitalism. There are a number of sure fire ways to mess up a personal, state, and federal budget. All you have to do is raise taxes (which never produces higher revenues, and even if it did, the liberals would spend it on junk), blame the rich, promise universal health care, and promise that you’re from the government and you’ve arrived on the scene to help those who are incapable of helping themselves.

Just as an aside, did you ever turn off Oprah, Dr. Phil, The Gilmore Girls, and the WWF long enough to ask yourself how people survived before the government became the “womb to tomb” Santa Claus? All kinds of weird things happened like families pitching in to help those in need, churches coming to the aid of those in trouble, and charitable organizations also helping because none of these entities were taxed to the bicuspids. All told, the government (at all levels) is currently hitting up the American taxpayer for approximately 40% of his or her hard earned income every year. This is absurd, but we cave on this one too.

By the way, for those goody-goody emerging social gospel advocates (Gushee, McLaren, Wallis, and all their devotees) here’s a news flash for you: When you give government a place in the welfare process you need to inform the American public that 70% of what is allocated in the federal welfare budget goes to “administrative costs.” From an economic viewpoint that is highly effective, isn’t it? There is a 70% waste factor. Private enterprise could do it much better with substantially lower admin costs. The 70% is the poster child for government efficiency.

If you ask the garden variety man or woman on the street if we’re in a recession, they’ll answer “Yes, of course!” If that is your answer, put on the dunce cap. Our economy is not in a recession. What is the textbook description of a recession? It is two successive quarters of negative growth in the economy. We are not there; it has not happened. Might it happen? Sure, but if you understand anything about the free market and capitalism, then you’ll understand that a recession is an occurrence that brings us back to reality. We like the affluence thing and when the economy is good we like to think that it is great. The Bible warns us about greed and how it affects others as well as us (cf. Ezek. 16:27; Hab. 2:5; Matt. 23:25; Luke 11:39; 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Pet. 2:3, 14). Ironically, greed and affluence can make us very sloppy, lulling us into the belief that our house of cards will never come crashing down. Can you say “sub-prime”? How many of the houses that are in foreclosure today were really out of the financial reach of the consumer, who threw caution and prudence to the wind?

Now what do those people want? They want government to bail them out. In other words, they want to act foolishly and irresponsibly and then to ask the American taxpayer to rescue them from their frivolity. This is analogous to people out here in Southern California who buy million dollar houses in either Laguna Beach or Malibu in very high risk areas where fires and mud slides are a common occurrence and when the inevitable happens they want us to fork over our money because their dream house was destroyed. Wherever we turn, we claim to be free, but want government to come to our aid. It’s just now coming to light how many billions of dollars have been wasted or is unaccounted for in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

This was not what the Founding Fathers envisioned folks. James Madison, the fourth president of the United States wrote this in The Federalist (no. 45): “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce…. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.” (Emphasis added.)

Does this sound like the America you live in or does it rather sound like the exact opposite of what this country is like now? In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison) wrote, “The powers of the (national) legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.” The Founders were wary of centralized government and as I mentioned last time, included numerous verbal negatives about the government and its power. The Federalist No. 33 explains that a congressional act beyond its enumerated powers is “merely an act of usurpation” that “deserves to be treated as such.” That should get the government’s attention, but the Constitution has been so long forgotten and almost never read that our elected officials need not fear of Americans bringing this to their attention.

But why shouldn’t we? As Walter Williams recently wrote, ‘Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders.”[1] Indeed, but we have sat by and done nothing. Personal peace and affluence trumps almost everything. Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key (Rep.) has introduced House Joint Resolution 1089 into Oklahoma’s state assembly. It fell like a bomb in the playground of elected officials. The good news is that Key’s resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives 92-3. This is encouraging news, even though the Oklahoma Senate sat on it until adjournment. Keys was neither dissuaded nor discouraged and plans to reintroduce the bill when our politicians manage to roll back to their jobs in their black limousines.

The crux of Key’s bill is the resolution “by the Houses of Representatives and the Senate of the 2^nd session of the 51^st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”[2]

Have you heard about this on the news? Has either candidate made mention of how this is such a good resolution because it points us in the right direction regarding getting the government out of our lives? No and no. Other than Ron Paul, Grover Norquist,[3] and Walter Williams, few seem concerned at all. Even Newt Gingrich, who called Norquist’s book a brilliant introduction to the coming revolution in American government, makes scant mention of the Constitution in a book that purports to bring about Real Change in America.[4]

How Low Can You Go?

I hear that President Bush’s approval ratings are in the toilet; under 30% of Americans think he’s doing and excellent job. There is certainly justification for those ratings. His spending policies are comparable—if not worse—to those of the Democrats. He made a debacle of No Child Left Behind, costing the taxpayers inordinate amounts of money and his overtures to the likes of Ted Kennedy ended in disaster. When it comes to securing our border to Mexico, the President seems totally clueless and unwilling to listen to the will of the American people. It was only when it was painfully and evidently plain that immigration reform was going to cause a revolution, he backed off pushing through ridiculous legislation. For once in a long while, the President and Congress actually listened to “We the people…” The American people got angry, said enough was enough, and were mobilized to get something accomplished. That is a rare commodity these days.

I mention the anger and Bush’s approval ratings to make another point, however. The latest Rasmussen Report states that just 9% of Americans say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. 9%! If Bush’s ratings are bad—and they are—what should be said about Congress? Ever since the Rasmussen boys have been doing their reports and polls, this is the first single-digit approval rating on record. How can Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of that crowd that promised us so much throw stones at Bush’s house when they’re 21 percentage points below him? Scott Rasmussen and his merry band go on to say that just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. The highest percentile for Congress in this category for all of 2008—up to and including now—is 13%.

So what are they doing with our tax dollars? Can you name one thing that Pelosi and the Democrat majority Congress has done? Are you pleased with the gasoline prices? Have you taken the time to write or call your Senators and Representatives to tell them you want them to stop the ban on offshore drilling and in ANWR? If you’re dissatisfied, why do we keep electing the same people every time? Are you aware that the Constitution says that every state only really needs one representative, two Senators, and representation in the Electoral College. In fact, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North and South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming has precisely that arrangement.

Here’s the point: It is “We the People” that are granted rights and we delegate power to the government. The government, however, acts as if the truth is precisely the other way around. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at what’s going on with our government today and they would be disappointed at men and women like you and me for being so apathetic that we did and said nothing. Take some time today and read the Tenth Amendment and do a gut check on whether you are an active, participating citizen in the process or whether you’re satisfied with personal peace and affluence. If it is the latter, don’t expect anyone to come to your rescue and make things right. If you don’t care about your individual rights, why should someone else care about them for you?

---

[1] Walter Williams, “Oklahoma Rebellion) (http://www.townhall.com, Wed., July 16, 2008), p. 1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] See his book: Leave Us Alone, Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives, (NY: William Morrow, 2008).

[4] Newt Gingrich, Real Change, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2008).

When Will We Get Back to the Constitution?

“You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.”

What Do We Need to Hear?

Now that the presidential race is heating up, we hear accusations flying back and forth between the candidates. You need a calculator to add up all the times that one accuses the other of “flip-flopping” on a major issue ranging from the war to drilling for oil. We are regaled with verbiage about health care, global warming (the new phrase is “climate control”), Supreme Court justices, foreign policy, welfare, and the economy. The issues and topics are almost limitless, but there is one topic about which both candidates have been strangely silent. In fact, with the exception of Ron Paul, there has been no candidate who has been willing to mention the subject. And yet, in a very real sense it is the most important subject in the upcoming race. I’m talking about the place of the U.S. Constitution in the minds of each candidate. Do they have an eye for the opening words, “We the People of the United States…,” or do they ignore not only those words, but the content of the founding documents as well?

Christian citizens are to obey those that the Lord has placed in authority over them (cf. Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). We also understand that wherever we live, God has providentially placed us there for a reason. Our task is to be salt and light to the world around, although let me quickly add that this mandate does not entail Christian parents sending their children to government schools to be salt and light. That is a cop out to someone’s conscience. Christian children are getting 14,000 seat hours (not to mention propaganda through homework) in government schools. Besides, how many 6 or 8-year-old missionaries do you know? But I digress. Our task is to bring to bear on culture a Christian life and worldview about God, man, society, truth, knowledge, and ethics that is foreign to a fallen world.

Andreas Köstenberger opines that our current cultural crisis “is merely symptomatic of a deep-seated spiritual crisis that continues to gnaw at the foundations of our once-shared societal values.”[1] With the almost unrelenting talk among evangelicals today about “engaging culture,” David Wells has argued convincingly that “A serious engagement with culture…is not what most evangelicals are about.”[2] Moreover, “They have no interest at all in what lies beneath the trends, none on how our modernized culture in the West shapes personal horizons, produces appetites, and provides us ways of processing the meaning of life.”[3]

But what are or what should evangelicals think about being involved in political matters? Some evangelicals would claim that Christians should not be involved in politics at all because that is not the purpose of the gospel. In the last few years, a number of liberal theologians (David Gushee, Brian McLaren, and Jim Wallis) have written what are ostensibly objective accounts of what evangelicals ought to believe vis-à-vis politics. Don’t let them fool you, folks. All three of these men are very liberal in their views and in the cases of both McLaren and Wallis it’s a joke to call them evangelicals. Gushee is possibly an evangelical, but just barely.[4]

Gushee, for example, has written a book entitled The Future of Faith in American Politics, The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center. He walks us through what he considers the hot ticket items on the evangelical right’s agenda and is quite critical of it. He then presents the evangelical left’s agenda and doesn’t seem too concerned that people believe you can be a Bible-believing evangelical and still vote for a party that embraces the sacred cow of abortion on demand (abortus provocatus) and same-sex marriages. Gushee doesn’t explain that—because he can’t—but points out that according to the left there is a certain ambivalence that permeates the position. Citing Brian McLaren as one of the left’s spokesmen, Gushee writes, “He acknowledges the importance of issues of sexuality (among which McLaren includes abortion and homosexuality), but he sees other ‘nonsexual’ issues as more pressing.”[5]

What Gushee considers the “evangelical center” is, by any stretch of the imagination the “evangelical left of center.” But even a man of Gushee’s stature makes no mention of how evangelicals on the right, left, or in the mythical center think, speak, and act about the fact that our elected officials have all but completely neglected the important place the U.S. Constitution ought to take in daily life. Here’s the deal: “Much of what federal, state, and local governments do today far exceeds constitutional authority and any reasonable definition of moral government.”[6] Let me give you just one case in point. Those who home school their children here in California where I live are going to be facing some very tough choices before the summer is over. It is written into the state of California’s education code that every teacher must be certified by the state, i.e., they must attend Mickey Mouse “educational” courses in order to get the state’s Good Housekeeping seal of approval. These courses involve neo-pagan, neo-barbarian worldviews that are one-hundred-and-eighty degrees out of phase with the Christian worldview. Moreover, there is nothing—zip, zero, zilch, nada—in the U.S. Constitution about the feds and education, but we have a department of health, education, and welfare.

Many economists have rightly observed that the essence of government is coercion and that by and large coercion is evil. Now that California somehow finagled this law onto its books, they can now act as if our children are theirs. In other words, they can dictate to free men and women when, where, and how our children will be educated by them. This is, as my old First Sergeant Charlie Green used to say, as wrong as two left overshoes. But Californians have allowed this to happen and when the opportunity arose to raise voices of dissent because of what the Constitution says—and more importantly what the Bible says—they were strangely silent. This is known as reaping the whirlwind.

I’m not singling out Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama on the issue of the centrality of the Constitution, because it’s a problem that crosses party lines and has been in existence for a while, the U.S. citizens being complicit in the problem. Let me give you a couple examples of what I mean. We’ll begin with the creeping tax problem, because it’s a prime indicator of how neglect and inattention to these matters works. In 1787, federal spending hovered around $3 million per year, or an annual tax of $1 per capita. By 1910, the feds were charging American taxpayers $6.75 annually. By 1929, spending topped $3 billion, bumping the annual tax rate up to $29 a person. What is the rate of government spending today? On a good day in 1994, a little over $4 billion a day was spent working out to approximately $6,000 a year per capita in taxes for the U.S. citizen. For those that can still do basic math, this works out to a 9,000% increase in taxation from 1929-1994!

To put matters in sharper perspective, “The colonists, who were paying about 67 cents a year in taxes, went to war with Great Britain claiming, ‘Taxation without representation is tyranny.’”[7] For this very reason, the framers manifested a general distrust of Congress, which is one of the reasons that they included phrases such as “shall not disparage,” “shall not infringe,” and “shall not be taken,” just to mention a few. Yet, even though Ms. Clinton promised the largest tax hike in the history of the United States, many mind-numbed robots raised no objections. In light of what Mr. Obama has been promising and touting, the U.S. citizen is going to have to pony up a boatload of new taxes. But this has not merely been a problem of the Democratic Party. Mr. Bush has managed to out spend his Democratic predecessors in spades, and, it must be added, hardly anything, if anything, was authorized by the U.S. Constitution. And that is the crux of our problem today.

The average family pays more in taxes than for food and clothing combined. In terms we all can understand, “More than 40 percent of the nation’s annual income is spent by politicians rather than by the people who earned it.”[8] But that is our problem in microcosm. Unless you have a CPA or “tax guy,” as a taxpayer you are required to keep records, decipher obscure tax codes, and find legal ways to reduce the already onerous tax burden. Philosopher David Hume said that it is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” It is a gradual, almost imperceptible process and one of the best ways for this to occur in the U.S.—and it’s already had great success—is for the American citizen to be ignorant of the Constitution and to be apathetic.

In this day and age, you can Google “U.S. Constitution” and download the document, or you can go to www.heritage.org and they’ll send you our founding documents for free. This would be a great first step in becoming aware of what the contents of our founding documents are. Once you’ve accomplished that, then you would want to begin to contact your local, state, and federal representatives. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 that written constitutions “furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people.” More recently, Ron Paul said this, “In early American history the Constitution figured heavily in political debate. People want to know, and politicians needed to justify, where the various schemes they debated in Congress were authorized in the Constitution.”[9] Today, the Constitution is like the elephant in the room that neither politicians nor citizens want to notice.

For years Americans have delegated more and more authority to the government, expecting it to care for them from the womb to the tomb. Once you expect the government to do for you what you can actually do for yourself, you have opened the floodgates and as Stanford economist Thomas Sowell once said, “Once you open the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.” Something I’ve noticed in the last week or so is that some Americans are getting to the point where they’re saying, “Enough is enough!” It’s possible that they’re just irritated about the high gasoline prices, but I think it’s more than that. I believe that some are just fed up with the politically correct nonsense that has all but paralyzed this country for far too long. Many hard-working tax payers are wondering why we have not been allowed to drill in ANWR, off the coasts, and in Utah/Colorado.

Citizens are angry because the District of Columbia has wrongfully denied law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. In fact, that happens far too often in many states that virtually ignore the content of the Second Amendment. Our elected officials act as if they are doing us a favor if they grant us a concealed carry permit instead of admitting that it is our Second Amendment right to keep and to bear arms.

They act as if they are doing us a favor if they let us keep 60% of what we’ve worked long and hard to earn. Why is 40% their share? Why do they think our children are theirs? It’s these “why” questions that Americans need to be asking on a daily basis. Washington, D.C. v. Heller passed by the narrowest of margins (5-4). If only one more liberal justice was seated on the court, Washington, D.C. would still be denying fundamental rights to its citizens; in essence, encouraging criminals and criminal activity and penalizing law-abiding citizens. The time to act is now. The Revolutionary War was fought over far less than what we’re experiencing today and it’s high time we remind our elected officials that they serve at our pleasure and not for their pocketbook. Having said that, we must possess the resolve to act and do everything within our power to remove those from office who have no respect for the Constitution—no matter which party they’re in.

---

[1] Andreas Köstenberger, God, Marriage, and Family, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 25.

[2] David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 3.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Evangelicalism is such an elastic term that even open theists like Olsen and Pinnock can still be called evangelicals.

[5] David Gushee, The Future of Faith in American Politics, (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp. 71-72.

[6] Walter Williams, Do the Right Thing, (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1995), p. 39.

[7] Ibid., 41.

[8] Ibid., 64.

[9] Ron Paul, The Revolution, (NY: Grand Central Publishing, 2008), p. 41.

Gun Control is Not about Guns, but about Control (IV)

“An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject”

Some Further Reflections

Tomorrow, Lord willing, the United States will once again celebrate the 4^th of July. Traditionally, this was a celebration of freedom and independence from tyranny. In anno 2008 I’m sometimes flummoxed to hear people saying that dissent is fine because that’s what America was founded on. I agree that we are granted the right to dissent. It is a precious right granted by our founding documents. It’s a little shortsighted and one dimensional, however, to leave dissent hanging out in the breeze, without defining precisely what the new country was dissenting about back in the day. In a word, they were dissenting against tyranny. Today, many dissent against the very freedoms that our forebears fought and died for. Ironic.

It is noteworthy that a landmark case was just brought before the Supreme Court. Equally noteworthy was the fact that four of the Supreme Court justices seem to have difficulty reading the simple language of the Second Amendment. Their four dissenting votes are nothing short of trying to legislate their worldview from the bench. Mark Levine is correct when he writes, “The Supreme Court is abusing and subverting its constitutional role. It has chosen to become the unelected, unassailable social engineer of American society.”[1] We have come to expect that activist judges will incorporate their worldview into their decision rather than giving us a faithful rendering of the intent of our founding documents. In other words, “Too many judges consider the Constitution a document of broad principles and concepts, one that empowers them to substitute their personal beliefs, values, and policies for those enumerated in the Constitution. They see their role limited only by the boundaries of their imaginations. These judges are activists or non-originalists.”[2]

In Washington, D.C. v. Heller we came perilously close to having a fundamental right ripped away from us by four liberal ideologues. I believe the Revolutionary War was fought over less than what Americans are dealing with today. Thankfully, wiser, more originalist heads prevailed—this time. What Washington, D.C. had done to its citizens was unconscionable. It had denied them the basic right of self-defense. We saw from Exodus 22:2 that God ordained for men to defend themselves and their loved ones. Over at emergent church advocate, Scot McKnight’s blog (Jesus Creed), a whole gaggle of Christian liberals opined how living in Canada and being defenseless was what Jesus would want us to do. Apparently, Jesus wants us to be cold socialists. One poor, misguided, and clueless woman wrote these words on that blog: “As a Christian, I understand that I might die or my children might die because I won’t carry a gun. But that is a price of my faith. We have to stand up for breaking the cycle of violence, even if it means dying.”

Honestly, it’s a little unclear to me how the “cycle of violence” is broken if I allowed an intruder to murder my family and me. This woman’s piece of illogical advice sounds pious, but it is far from that. As I mentioned before, Exodus 22:2 doesn’t take that tack. Her rendering of the text would go something like this: “If a thief is found breaking in, remember that every true Israelite is a pacifist. Don’t bother to defend yourself for that would be unworthy of a true Jew. Sorry, but that’s just the price tag of your faith. Besides, by succumbing to a thug’s desire to murder you, your non-resistance will break the vicious cycle of violence.”

For whatever reason some Christians today believe that acting like a coward is a badge of honor in the Christian faith. This also seems to be a cultural phenomenon as both Ann Douglas[3] and E. Anthony Rotundo[4] chronicled. I’m willing to wager that if the woman on the Jesus Creed blog was actually in a life-or-death situation regarding herself and children that she would do anything and everything within her power to survive and to protect her children as well. Piety grows exponentially on the Internet and in theoretical discussions. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Lord’s Day 40, Q/A 105 reminds Christians that they are not to harm or recklessly endanger themselves (cf. Matt. 4:7). In Q/A 107 we are admonished to protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can. By extrapolation, wouldn’t this, shouldn’t this apply to our immediate family as well? What the woman—and others like her—forget is that while we might think of murder as “bad,” God hates it (cf. Q/A 106). Not to attempt to prevent it is to allow something that the Lord God Almighty reveals that he hates. If he hates it, then I, as a Christian, am to hate it too. I am to think his thoughts after him.

What Does the Second Amendment Teach?

In the District of Columbia (et al.) v. Heller it was held by the Supreme Court majority opinion that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Emphasis added). The Court further held that “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is must acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional” (Italics mine).

Unfortunately, there are four justices who cannot see the light of day. Rock star, Ted Nugent said it well: “I snicker and shake my head in disbelief that there are four ‘justices’ on the ‘supreme’ court that do not believe Americans have individual rights.”[5] Oddly, these same justices do not believe that we need to get a government permit and undergo a background check to choose our religion or lack thereof or that we need a ten-day waiting period to express our First Amendment right of free speech.

Some Americans are so naïve that they actually believe a sign declaring “gun free zone” will deter criminals and “bad guys.” Again Nugent: “Everybody knows that it is in these anti-American, anti-constitutional ‘gun free zones’ where innocent people are forced into unarmed helplessness and where the highest body count of innocents is stacked up by evil perpetrators celebrating the condition of helpless sheep to slaughter.”[6]

This means that in essence the District of Columbia has willingly and knowingly acted in an unconstitutional fashion towards its citizens, not caring for their life or well-being. In fact, it must be argued that they intentionally jeopardized their citizens, allowing thugs and criminals to know that they had free rein because the citizenry had been effectively disarmed by those elected to defend their rights. It is time we took the gloves off and stopped sugarcoating the truth. D.C.’s insane gun ban has been a violent criminal’s playground, where they are assured no resistance from a forcibly unarmed citizenry. “That is a bizarre, immoral condition and a direct result of the cult of feel-good liberals who could care less about dead good people as they wring their hands worrying about the rights of the most evil amongst us.”[7]

Who is responsible, humanly speaking, for my personal defense and that of my family? Is it Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schwarzenegger, Obama, Hillary, or McCain? Is it the police? Is calling 911 my ultimate and best shot at preserving my life? If that’s the case, then all I can really expect is for the CSI team to sift through the aftermath of the criminal activity. Those who are in law enforcement are, by and large, my heroes, just like our military personnel, but I cannot depend upon them to be my personal defense. Whose responsibility is it to tell free men and women, when, how, and where they may defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones against criminal activity? People like Rosie O’Donnell disgust me for a number of reasons, not least of which is that she wants American citizens to be disarmed while she has an armed guard with her at all times.

Banning guns hasn’t worked to deter crime or make communities safer. In fact, just the opposite is the case. All gun bans have ever accomplished is the creation of guaranteed victims. D.C. has been “a cesspool of crime for years. This ruling confirms the rights of good people the ability to defend themselves against bad people. Who could possibly find fault with that supreme dose of common sense?”[8] Oh, Ted, common sense exited stage right a long time ago, but we can be overjoyed that Heller won his case.

Just the Facts, Ma’am

Joe Friday got it right on the old black and white TV series Dragnet. We are all served well by facts. John Adams once told a jury, “Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”[9] But just what are the facts about guns? If you talk to the man or woman on the street about these matters, if you aware of the truth, you will be astounded at how ignorant and misinformed they are. As far as the gun propaganda goes, these folks have imbibed of industrial strength doses of the Kool-Aid. We don’t have the time to arm you with all the facts—no pun intended—but to let you see that law-abiding citizens carrying guns, either concealed or open, is not a threat to society and society’s safety but rather a strong deterrent to crime.[10]

First fact: guns are used about 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. That averages out to about 6,850 times a day! According to the stats provided by the National Safety Council, this means that firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Moreover, in those 2.5 million times less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his or her attacker. In addition, as many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Second fact: according to Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, armed citizens kill more criminals than do the police (1,527 to 606).[11]

Third fact: concealed carry laws actually help in reducing crime. A comprehensive national study done in 1996 revealed that states that made it legal to carry concealed firearms saw a drop in violent crime rates.[12]

Fourth fact: Vermont—of all places!—permits its citizens to carry a firearm without getting permission, without paying a fee to the government, or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. The FBI background check is done on computer at the time of purchase. For ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top five safest states—unless you’re a child getting molested by a child predator who is then let off by some leftwing ideologue activist judge in a black robe.

Fifth fact: approximately fifteen years ago, the state of Florida passed a concealed carry law. Since 1987, somewhere in the neighborhood of 800,000 carry permits were issued to the citizens. According to conventional wisdom, Florida should have become a rogue state meting out vigilante justice. This simply points out how uninformed those who depend on conventional wisdom sometimes are. FBI reports demonstrate that the homicide rate in Florida, which, by the way, was above the national average in 1987, fell a precipitous 52% during that fifteen year period.

Sixth fact: in 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The result was an eye-popping 89% drop in the household burglary rate, compared to a 10.4% drop in the state of Georgia over all.

Seventh fact: worldwide, in those countries that have effectually disarmed their citizens (Great Britain, Canada, and Holland) more than 45% of the time homeowners are occupying their homes when they are burglarized. Think about that. Those countries—like Washington, D.C.—had given the advantage to the criminal in every case. But the caveat is that if you take guns away—like Hitler and Stalin did—people will find other weapons to use in crimes, although there still doesn’t seem to be any shortage of firearms for criminals to purchase illegally. In those three countries crimes are committed with guns, butcher knives, and the messy way: large mechanic’s screwdrivers.

Eighth fact: there is also a correlation between decrease in rape rates when it is known or suspected that the rape victim might be armed. For example, in Orlando, FL in 1966-1967 the media publicized a safety course that taught Orlando women how to use guns. The rape rate dropped 88%, which is more than significant. During that same period, the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the U.S.

Ninth fact: back in the halcyon days of Peanut Jim Carter, the Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. However, when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.

Tenth fact: 60% of felons polled—who does that?—agreed that a criminal is not going to mess with a victim that he knows is armed with a gun. That makes sense, doesn’t it? Why do you think criminals only rarely attack law enforcement officers? The simple answer is: it is because they know they are armed. Their being armed is an enormous deterrent to cowards who want to prey on the weak and unarmed. In a related fact, 74% of felons polled agreed that one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is because they fear that the occupants might be armed.

There’s a lot more to say, but I hope this has given you something to think about. Have a great 4^th of July!

---

[1] Mark Levine, Men in Black, (Washington, D.C., Regnery, 2005), p. 195.

[2] Ibid. 13.

[3] Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture, (NY: The Noonday Press, 1977).

[4] E. Anthony Rotundo, American Manhood, Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era, (NY: Basic Books, 1993).

[5] Ted Nugent, “D.C. Gun Ban Blown Away,” Human Events, Vol. 64, No. 23 (June 30, 2008), p. 1.

[6] Ibid., 8.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] David McCullough, John Adams, (NY: Touchstone Books, 2001), p. 68.

[10] I am greatly indebted to Larry Pratt at www.gunowners.org for this material.

[11] Kleck & Gertz, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, 111-116, 148.

[12] John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns Less Crime, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000²).

Gun Control is Not about Guns, but about Control (III)

“A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone”

Some Biblical Texts to Think About

In our last installment, I promised that we would take a look at some biblical texts that address the issue of citizens being armed. Of course, this will not be an exercise where we look in 2 Hesitations 5 under “Gun Control” and find a pat answer. My Presbyterian tradition does, however, offer this explanation of how we should view Scripture: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6. Emphasis added).

Are there, then, lessons we can learn from the Word of God that might help us to decide as Christians whether it is biblical to carry a weapon or to defend oneself and loved ones? In other words, must “Pacifism” be the default setting for everyone who is a Christian? There are those such as Herman Hoyt, Myron Augsburger, David Gushee, Glen Stassen, John Yoder, and Jim Wallis—just to mention a few—who believe that being a pacifist is what Christians must be. Others, including me, are not convinced that this is the case.

As I unfold why I hold to my position, I will have recourse to both the Old and New Testaments, based on what I cited from the Westminster Standards above. In addition, when the apostle Paul wrote to his young friend Timothy that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…,” he was, of course, referring to the Old Testament and the extant New Testament writings that were then available. Since approximately 10% of the New Testament is comprised of quotations from or allusions to the Old Testament, it should be patently clear that the Dispensationalists are simply dead wrong.

Naturally there are differences between the testaments, but that is not to say that the entire Old Testament has been abrogated. A detailed lesson in hermeneutics is for another time, but it is safe to say that some things in the Old Testament have been clearly abrogated (i.e., the dietary laws, animal sacrifices, etc.), some have been altered (Passover and the Lord’s Supper; circumcision and Baptism; no theocracy, the state wielding the sword and the Church exercising admonition and excommunication), and many texts left unaltered. With that as a brief background, let’s proceed.

We’ll begin by taking a look at two Old Testament texts. They will be treated separately, but we need to keep in mind that they belong together. The first is found in a portion of what is known as “The Book of the Covenant.” (Ex. 21-23.) In Exodus 22:2 we read, “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him.” The clear indication is that the man of the house is expected to protect his family. He must provide spiritual guidance and leadership, love, and, when and if necessary, protection. In fact, this Old Testament text goes so far to say even if the thief broke in with no intention of murdering or raping (how can you possibly know the intentions of an intruder in the middle of the night?) if you kill him, it is not murder. He had no business in your home uninvited and God grants you the right to defend yourself and loved ones.

A negative twist on this concept is found in Jeremiah 2:34-35a. God is upbraiding his people for insensitivity to the “guiltless poor” and he tears a strip off of them by saying, “Also on your skirts is found the lifeblood of the guiltless poor; you did not find them breaking in. Yet in spite of all these things you say, ‘I am innocent; surely his anger has turned from me.’” Ostensibly, if the poor had broken into an Israelite home and attempted to burglarize it, the occupant would have been justified in killing him. As it stands, Israel was guilty of another kind of killing of the poor that was not lawful.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah have always been fascinating to me. God continues his line of covenant faithfulness and trustworthiness for his people. They are allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the wall and repair the city. They meet resistance and obstacle after obstacle. In Nehemiah 4:14, the nobles are addressed in this manner: “And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, ‘Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.’” (Emphasis added.) Apart from the clear and obvious redemptive-historical work that God was doing with his people, there is the command not to be a pacifist. This is not a new development in Israel’s history, since they had been required to fight before. In fact, as we shall see later, it was not uncommon for the Israelites to have swords in their tents, but that’s for later.

Israel under Oppression

One of the most chilling verses in Scripture is found in Judges 2:10: “And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers. And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel.” You really do have to ask: How did that happen? When you reflect, however, it becomes clear that the spiritual ruin presaged political and cultural collapse as well. Abandoning God, the Israelites were oppressed horribly every time Israel forsook the ways of the Lord God Almighty. In Judges 5:8, we read the following: “When new gods were chosen, then war was in the gates. Was shield or spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel?”

The choice of new or strange gods ultimately meant a kind of war was raging, but it is also instructive that Israel had been disarmed. The mentioning of the paucity of weapons shows that Israel normally possessed them, but their occupiers confiscated Israel’s arms for all the obvious reasons. Another example of this is found in 1 Samuel 13:19-23.[1] In this text it is clear that not only did the Philistines confiscate Israel’s weapons to defend themselves, but certain trades were also forbidden as a result of the oppression. The Philistines took their weapons and then told them what they could and could not do. It was easy, of course, because the Israelites were disarmed. That was not normal for Israel.

In fact, Larry Pratt has argued that the Israelite army was a militia army that came to battle with each man bearing his own weapon.[2] When armed men were needed, there was no scarcity in the Israelite camp (cf. Num. 31:3). When King David needed 400 armed men, we are told that they simply strapped on their swords and left 200 others to guard the baggage (cf. 1 Sam. 25:13). There is no hint of pacifism here nor is there any inclination that the government was in favor of more “sword control” laws. Realistically, sinners will always cause problems. In the account of Cain murdering Abel, we do not find God passing rock or club control, whatever Cain used to commit his crime. Rather, the Lord provided a means by which murderers were to be dealt with in a God-prescribed manner (cf. Gen. 9:5-6). This truth has evidently been lost on many in America today. They somehow foolishly believe that the more guns are controlled and the more difficult it is to own one, the safer we’ll all be.

Nothing could be farther from the truth! The unvarnished facts are that the more our illustrious elected officials want to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns, the more dangerous our neighborhoods and freeways become. A person who wants a “Saturday night special” will find one. Gangs seem to have an almost unlimited supply of weapons at cheap prices. Why should a citizen, who undergoes a FBI background check via computer at the gun shop not be able to walk out of the store with the gun if he or she passes the check? Why do I need Pelosi, Boxer, Biden, or Obama to tell me—a free man—if, when, and how I may defend myself? I am granted the right by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.

You see a major part of the problem in the United States is that we want to make it next to impossible for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves and we are soft on criminals. Today with the Supreme Court ruling about guns, the media will be up in arms. We’ll hear about Columbine, Virginia Tech, and how horrible it is for law-abiding citizens to have guns. The Second Amendment was granted by the Founding Fathers to protect the citizens. Many today still have not learned that lesson. The misinformation about guns is about as thorough as any other piece of propaganda I know. In the articles that follow, I’d like to try to rid the world of some of the false notions that are alive and kicking in the United States today and to attempt to bring some sanity and rationality to the discussion.

---

[1] Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, ‘Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.’ But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle, and the charge was two-thirds of a shekel for the plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the goads. So on the day of the battle there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people with Saul and Jonathan, but Saul and Jonathan his son had them. And the garrison of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash.

[2] Larry Pratt, “The Bible and Gun Control,” (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0801.htm [2003]), p. 8.

Justice Mocked Again!

Killer "Accepts" Life Without Parole

The Orange County Register (Friday, June 20, 2008, Local, pg. 2) ran an article about Eloy Gonzalez, who is a former Santa Ana, CA gang member who cut a deal with authorities to avoid the death penalty? Since when are criminals granted the right to make a deal in order to avoid the death penalty? The article read, "Superior Court Judge Stephen A. Sillman, a retired judge from Monterrey Country who is sitting on assignment in Orange County, cautiously took Gonzalez's guilty plea." Huh? Cautiously? Why? Well, according to the very informative article, "Gonzalez...wants to see his two daughters, who are now 12 and 11, grow up, and felt he would have a better chance of having a relationship with the children if he was serving a life sentence as opposed to being on death row."

Daddy should have thought out that before he shot and killed Abel Charvira during a robbery. Chavira was committing the unconscionable crime of buying laundry detergent. Wrong place; wrong time. Oh, did I mention that Gonzalez murdered Chavira not merely because he disliked the brand of laundry detergent he was purchasing, but also "for the benefit of the Southside Street gang in Santa Ana." Oh, well, why didn't you say so in the first place? That is certainly a matter in extenuation and mitigation of the circumstances! For a moment, I thought Gonzalez murdered Chavira because he had a low view of Tide.

As disgusting as this is, there is more and it gets worse. Gonzalez was already serving a life term without the possibility of parole after he was convicted of the robbery-murder of Jesse Muro, a 17-year-old Century High School student. Is one of the qualifications for judge in CA today that you have to have and IQ in single digits and a commonsense quotient that is actually negative? Jude Sillman cautiously took Gonzalez's guilty plea? So now the U.S. taxpayer can foot the bill of yet another prisoner who should have been given the death penalty. Cautiously, after the man was convicted of two cold-blooded murders, Eloy Gonzalez will get to visit with his daughters.

You have to wonder what it will take before Americans have had enough of the blatant silliness and bleeding heart liberalism and will start demanding that convicted murderers be put to death? We have tried secular humanism far too long and it has left us morally bankrupt. When will we wake up?

Gun Control is Not about Guns, but about Control

“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed

If it is true that Americans cherish what the First Amendment says about the freedom of speech,[1] it remains a mystery why there is so much confusion and misinformation regarding the Second Amendment. Our Constitution begins with the words, “We the People of the United States.” “The people” are mentioned in amendments 1, 4, 9, 10, and, of course, 2. Elsewhere, “the people” are referred to as “persons” or “citizens.” Throughout the Constitution it is hammered home that “the people” have rights, but the government does not. It has power that is granted to it by the people, but its citizens have rights. You can check it out for yourself. For whatever reason, a number of social engineers want to limit the scope of “the people” in the Second Amendment, but are fine with it referring to individual rights in the rest of the Constitution.

Stephen P. Halbrook has written a fascinating new book entitled The Founders’ Second Amendment. Origins of the Right to Bear Arms,[2] in which he chronicles in well over 300 pages what the Second Amendment intends. In other words, he’s not telling us what he thinks off the top of his head, which is what happens in a number of cases today when the discussion centers on the possession of firearms and the right of citizens to have them and use them.

Historically, it is interesting that the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists about the Second Amendment found these two opposing factions sharing two assumptions: “first, that the proposed new constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and the militia; and second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.”[3]

As I write this installment, there is currently a landmark case regarding Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court (Washington, D.C. v. Heller) and a decision should be handed down sometime in July. The case concerns the right of the citizens of Washington, D.C. to possess a firearm for personal protection. In addition to affecting the D.C. populace, this decision will have far-reaching implications—whichever way it shakes out—for all of us for years and decades to come. Part of the debate deals with whether the Second Amendment provides an individual the right to bear (not bare!) arms, or whether the Amendment applies solely to the National Guard and other such organizations that would qualify as a “militia.” In other words, the Second Amendment is not an argument about short-sleeved shirts, even the Rick Warren aloha variety.

One might think that the argument over individual as opposed to collective rights should be a slam dunk, since it is clear, for example, that the First Amendment clearly applies to individual rights. In fact, those who are most vociferous about First Amendment rights are emphatic that these are individual rights—except for those, of course, who disagree with them. When these staunch defenders of the First Amendment shout down a visiting speaker with whom they, the enlightened bleeding heart liberals, disagree, they are merely saving the country from having to listen to a raving, rightwing nut case. You do see the difference, don’t you? It never ceases to amaze me that the liberals who hypocritically enjoin First Amendment rights are the first ones on college and university campuses (or campi) to shout down guest speakers and lecturers and refuse to allow them to speak. Of course, that is fair because the liberals are right and those who oppose their views are wrong and not worthy to be heard. But on the individual rights note, when was the last time you heard a discussion about whether the First Amendment applies just to the National Guard or to individuals as well? Or, when was the last time you heard someone questioning whether eminent domain only applied to a select few?

The propagandists have done their ideological, activist, and politically correct work well and have become the masters of misinformation dissemination. They have, in fact, done their work so well that every time a person who fully supports the Second Amendment speaks up on his or her own behalf, they will find themselves on the business end of a flurry of accusations that are almost 100% false, especially with regard to “gun control,” but which accusations form part and parcel of what is commonly called “conventional wisdom.” Few ever take the time to question if conventional wisdom is true. It is, after all, consensus wisdom. But is it really? That is to say, is the conventional wisdom regarding gun control based on irrefutable fact, or is it, like much in our modern society, an emotional, knee-jerk reaction?

I ask these questions because I am convinced that America is rapidly morphing from a nation of sheep into a nation of mind-numbed non-thinkers, and the transformation is, in many cases, almost complete. Mottos and mantras are the reaction d’jour. Guns kill! Why doesn’t someone cry out, “Pencils and pens misspell!”? Or, “Matches cause arson!” Why, for example, don’t we scream, “Water drowns!”? Why isn’t there a concerted effort to shut down privately-owned swimming pools or to banish swimming or surfing in the ocean? We know that cars in and of themselves don’t kill, but rather that people behind the wheel do. Over 6,000 teenagers go out for a drive yearly and never return home. Why are we far more concerned about that than we are guns? We should all take great comfort in the fact that almost every day of the year 66,999,987 firearms owners, give or take a few, kill no one.

Apart from illogical thinking, here is the chilling part: Our clueless, effeminate, politically correct society (and many of our politicians are worse!) has no historical understanding of gun control, even though they clamor for more of it constantly, as if more laws would be beneficial. There is already law upon law, in excessu, on the books already. We do not need more gun laws. In point of fact, we could and should make do with substantially fewer. Moreover, an inordinately high number of those laws are directly in contradiction to the Second Amendment and actually do “infringe” on our rights to own and carry a gun. The granting of the individual right does not mean that each and every citizen is obliged to own and carry a gun, but that if they choose to do so, they may. I would add that it seems clear that free men and women may choose to carry those weapons openly or concealed.

The propagandists have done their job, however, so that when I write words like I did above, some people go apoplectic. They envision people running around shooting any one and every one at the drop of a hat. Remember: Yesterday over 66 million gun owners killed no one. That also holds true for the day before yesterday and so on for a long, long time. You see, if you listen to the propagandists’ lies—and many have—then you will not understand that an armed society is, in fact, a very polite society. An armed man is a free citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. According to the Second Amendment, free men, who have never committed a felony, are granted the right of possessing and carrying a firearm. If, on the other hand, you don’t know your rights, you might as well not be granted any. The screeds and propaganda about guns and gun control are, de facto, the precise opposite of what the anti-gun lobby portrays the right granted by the Second Amendment to be. Allow me to give you an example of how happily inconsistent we are on this ethical issue.

The New Orleans case during hurricane Katrina is a recent example that demonstrates how thoroughly the anti-gun lobbyists have done their work. The leftists clamor vigorously and rigorously about the rights taken away from U.S. citizens by the Patriot Act. They are equally vociferous about not wiretapping phone calls from potential terrorists. That, to their way of thinking, is a violation of rights. Leftists are also ultimately concerned about the rights of terrorists at Club Gitmo in Cuba and how America is violating the Geneva Convention by keeping them there. Their protests are clear indications that they have never read or understood the Geneva Convention, but are merely mouthing the talking points and toeing the party line.

I preface my remarks about New Orleans and Katrina as I have done for a reason. No bleeding heart do-gooder raised any qualms when citizens of New Orleans had their guns confiscated during Katrina and the aftermath. When we take the time to lay the propaganda aside and begin to think and read for ourselves we come to understand that many despots employed the strategy of disarming the citizenry in order to defang them of any resistance. Names like Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Hussein, and Castro come to mind immediately. Our Founding Fathers understood this completely. Some of the citizens of New Orleans still have not had their legally possessed firearms given back to them. Some Americans are so foolish, so leftwing, and so inconsistent that they see no problem with the government acting in an unauthorized manner and seizing a freeman’s firearm and violating his Second Amendment right. For those who are gleeful about the confiscation of guns just remember this: If you grant the government the power to take your firearm, you are also giving them the implicit power to take whatever they want to take from you whenever they want to take it. Be careful what you wish for, because what might please you in the confiscation of guns one day might very well come around and bite you tomorrow. Many still fail to realize that less government involvement in life is far better than more involvement. Sadly, ironically there are those pitiful souls who still believe the lie: I’m from the government and I’m here to help you!

The “Wild West” Fallacy

But who wants to live in a society where citizens openly carry loaded weapons or carry them in a concealed fashion? That’s a good question and it needs to be answered realistically. Far too often, that question is answered emotionally, in terms of having listened to propaganda, or from a predisposed fear of guns. Rationally, this is a misplaced fear. Let me ask you this: Who do you think will intentionally harm you with a gun? Would it be a law-abiding citizen, who has gone through a FBI background check and had no criminal record and had never been committed to a hospital for mental problems or a criminal, who bought his or her gun illegally? The answer is simple for those still in possession of a modicum of commonsense.

What leftists, ideologues, and other uninformed people fail to understand is that an armed society is a polite society. Unfortunately, many have fallen prey to what I’ll call the “Wild West” fallacy. That is to say, they have bought into the lie that everyone in the “Wild West” went around shooting each other for no reason. We need to realize that there was not a lot of “trail rage” back then because the trails weren’t all that crowded. In actuality, many of the shooting deaths resulted from outlaws getting drunk in saloons, cheating at cards in saloon poker games, or arguing over a prostitute and stepping out in the street to settle the argument with a gun. In other words, much of what passes for the “Wild West” mentality was outlaws and drunks killing other outlaws and other drunks. Moreover, more than once, honest, hard-working citizens protected themselves and their families against an outlaw because they too were armed. Today, the restrictions are ludicrous, favoring the criminal time after time. He can buy an illegal gun from the trunk of a car, but the law-abiding citizen in many states not only has to undergo a background check, but he or she must also wait a period of about ten days before he can actually pick that gun up.

A couple more silly exa