Letter to the Editor

Ban anti-gun political leaders

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Dear Editor,

Hardly a day passes at the Ministry of Propaganda without yet another useful idiot spewing a tirade of fact-free anti-gun bull crap. A reasoned response to Washington's media apparatchik is wanting:

Do guns cause crime? While the number of firearms in the U.S. has increased, the number of firearm-related homicides has steadily decreased. FBI statistics show that total firearm-attributed homicides are in decline. In fact, homicides committed with a "rifle" are less than those committed with a "blunt object" such as a baseball bat, club, hammer, etc. Shall we restrict or ban Louisville sluggers, Wilson putters and Stanley hammers? Should we demand that baseball players, golfers and carpenters be licensed to use these "assault" weapons? With the exception of Texas, those states having the toughest restrictions on firearms possession -- California, New York (and District of Columbia) -- each have high murder rates by firearms:

Homicide Data for 2011 (Source: FBI)

Illinois ........................ 452 total, 377 by firearms (83 percent) percent by rifle

District of Columbia ........ 108 total, 77 by firearms (77 percent) 0 percent by rifle

Pennsylvania ................. 636 total, 470 by firearms (74 percent) 2 percent by rifle

Connecticut .................. 128 total, 94 by firearms (73 percent) 1 percent by rifle

Michigan ..................... 613 total, 450 by firearms (73 percent) 6 percent by rifle

California ..................... 1790 total, 1220 by firearms (68 percent) Less than 4 percent by rifle

Massachusetts ............... 183 total, 122 by firearms (67 percent) 0 percent by rifle

Nebraska ..................... 65 total, 42 by firearms (64 percent) 5 percent by rifle

Texas .......................... 1089 total, 699 by firearms (64 percent) 5 percent by rifle

New York .................... 774 total, 445 by firearms (57 percent) 1 percent by rifle

Alaska ........................ 29 total, 16 by firearms (55 percent) 0 percent by rifle

Vermont ...................... 8 total, 4 by firearms (50 percent) 0 percent by rifle

New Hampshire ............. 16 total, 6 by firearms (38 percent) 33 percent by rifle

The weapon anti-gun zealots most want to ban is the rifle; but, if we consider their contribution as a percentage of homicides committed using firearms, then rifles play no major role. The issue is not whether possession of "assault" weapons causes higher crime rates -- a bogus description and a false claim; but rather the issue is the government's motive to deprive Americans of their most effective tool against tyranny.

Wherever citizens are deprived of their right to keep and bear arms, crime rates increase. With the exception of the Gabriel Giffords shooting, all mass-shooting incidents since 1950 have occurred in places where citizens were prevented from defending themselves. Connecticut has an "assault weapons" ban, and yet the law did not stop the Newtown shooter. Laws do not stop criminals -- well-armed citizens do.

According to a study conducted by Florida criminalist Gary Kleck, 2.5 million Americans use a firearm for self-defense each year; and 400,000 believe that, if not for the gun they used, they would otherwise be dead. Pro-gun-control law professor and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, of Northwestern University, examined Kleck's data and methodology. His conclusion: "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz ... [T]hey have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator ... I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

Lawful gun owners prevent crime. Readers are perhaps unaware of the attempted mass-shooting incident inside an Oregon shopping mall, which occurred prior to the shootings in Connecticut. The assailant killed two people. Then, a licensed concealed-carry gun owner, drawing his 0.22 caliber semi-auto pistol, confronted the assailant; however, he did not fire his weapon for fear of hitting innocents standing behind the shooter. The outcome was that the assailant shot himself, rather than continue his plan. Such confrontations happen over 4,000 times per day in the U.S., where citizens use firearms to prevent a crime from starting, or stop one in progress.

Recall the riots in South Central LA. Korean proprietors were un-assailed by the mobs. Shop owners took up their pump shotguns, their bolt-action and semi-auto rifles; and then took positions on their store roofs to protect their property, themselves and their rights. Police were nowhere in sight.

The fact is that the police are not required to defend anybody -- a ruling upheld by U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. The citizen is reasonably expected and morally obligated to: 1) Defend his own life and those of his family; and 2) Where possible, defend the lives of his neighbors. The corporate aspect includes defense of the nation from attack by enemies foreign and domestic -- including unconstitutional aggression prosecuted by government upon its own citizens. This truth is borne out in the philosophical principles the founders of our Republic relied upon for their provision of the Right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, the philosophy they rejected proves the primary purpose for the Right was to provide 'We the People' the final check on government power.

Thomas Jefferson said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." At no time did the Founding Fathers attempt to clarify or restrict the type of firearm people could possess.

We must consider the Second Amendment is the only Right for which the founders thought it wise to spell out "shall not be infringed." Americans do well to reflect on the reason for this phrase, and why the present brood of political servants is frantic to subvert it. History's objective lesson is that when the people are disarmed, government-prosecuted genocide follows. Thus it is better to ban the anti-gun politicians -- not our guns.

For further reading on this subject, I recommend: That Every Man be Armed by Stephen Halbrook, Esq., Ph.D. (The Independent Institute, 1984, 1994, 2000). It is an easily-understood and well-footnoted book that thoroughly explains the philosophy and history of the Right to keep and bear arms.

Bruce C. Desautels

Stratton, Nebraska

View 26 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Beautiful!

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 9:04 AM
  • Bruce,

    I would like to ask of your opinion, legally speaking, can the POTUS infringe on the Second Amendment with an "executive order"?

    If so, do we as a constitutionally governed nation have any recourse?

    Or do we just call ouselves a european colony?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 7:20 AM
  • Are the words "we'll regulated" in that amendment?

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 7:38 AM
  • *

    "Well regulated," does not mean "regulation" in the context of government regulation. The historical context places the meaning in the frame of "regular," as in "well-practiced," "regularly trained and competent." It is imperative that, when considering such questions, reference is made to the original meaning of the word at the time of its usage ... How were the words in question - or the phrase - intended by the authors? What was the common usage of the day?

    We must always consider constitutional questions in the light of "original intent." The only way the language of the Second Amendment makes sense is in that understanding of "well trained and competent" ...

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Now since, at the time, hunting was something which every man had to do out of necessity, then it is absurd to argue that the Amendment was intended to protect hunting. Likewise, it is an absurd position to contend that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was provided so to protect "target shooting." Ammunition was then a hand-made item, an expensive commodity, and thus not meant to be wasted on frivolous pursuits, such as would be "target practice." Further, every competent hunter was - by "regular" necessity - a good shot.

    Consider too that the framers of the Constitution were well-acquainted with tyrannical government, as such was a common plague in Europe. Therefore they intended that the American people should never be deprived of their weapons ... Firstly, for the purpose of securing the common defense of the nation; but, secondly, and more pointedly, so to provide the people a means by which to guarantee the safety of their liberties, should their own government become despotic.

    Many words used today do not carry the same meaning they held in the 18th century. One must always consider the remarks, laws and practices, of any historical period, within the context of those concerns, experiences, understanding and common language of that period. Otherwise the meaning is warped by modern deviations from the original intent.

    Regarding Executive Orders: The President's power to create such orders extends ONLY to his ability to enforce the existing legislation passed by Congress and signed into law. Additionally, such orders are intended only to govern those agencies that operate under the Executive's jurisdiction, as defined within the Constitution, and thus they are limited powers. The President cannot legally create arbitrary law repugnant to the Constitution. Neither may the Legislative or the Executive branch of our government act to nullify any provision within the Bill of Rights. If either branch acts do such, then the "law" is de-facto "null and void." If the government persists in any action to enforce such an aberration, then they act as tyrants ... In which case, the purpose of the Second Amendment is clear; and, once all other peaceful means of redress are exhausted, then armed resistance - by the people - becomes duty.

    Neither President Obama, nor any member of Congress, has the authority to revoke any Right enumerated in the Constitution. If such were the case, then the Constitution is meaningless, and our liberties would be not an issue of Natural Rights, but rather one of granted privileges (thus revocable) by government. That such an arrangement could be interpreted today as permissible is a concept that our founders would find alien to their understanding, and obnoxious to their intent.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 10:22 AM
  • At a time when states rights were a concern I would take militia to mean the current day national guard. So it reads a well practiced national guard. Not private citizens

    -- Posted by president obama on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 5:55 PM
  • Thank You Bruce!

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 6:11 PM
  • *

    Dear "President Obama" ... You, sir, are just as ignorant in facts of history, as is your doppelganger whom presently occupies space in our White House.

    In all historical text concerning the definition of "militia," as such term pertains to the intention of the Second Amendment, there is made a distinction between the "state guard" and the "unorganized militia" - which is composed of all able-bodied males in the country. Furthermore the Amendment clearly stipulates "the people" just as does the other Amendments that pertain to INDIVIDUAL Rights. Moreover, how is it that - since the founders were quite explicit in their explanation of purpose, both publicly in the Ratification debates and in the Federalist Papers, and privately through their plethora of correspondence between themselves - you are ignorant of their original intent? These are not "secret documents" ... They are readily available for any who choose to view them.

    Most pointedly, sir, by your (il)logic we must extend the restriction, which you assert for the Second Amendment, to the other nine Amendments stipulated in the Bill of Rights - to wit:

    The Right to free Speech, a free Press, unencumbered religious practice, peaceful assembly, petition for redress of grievances;

    The Right to be free from quartering of Soldiers in one's home during peacetime;

    The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against warrant-less searches

    The Right to due process, and Grand Jury for capital crimes, and aginst self incrimination, and against being placed in double jeopardy;

    The Right to a fair and speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district where the crime shall have been committed, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses against him, and have witness in his favor, and to have the assistance of council for defence;

    The Right to a trial by jury in suits at Common Law, and that the reexamination of any fact, tried by jury, shall be in accordance with the rules of Common Law;

    The Right to not have excessive bail required or excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted;

    The enumeration of Rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    According to you, "Mr. Obama," None of these Rights applies to the private citizen ... even though the stipulated purpose within the Bill of Rights clearly and repeatedly affirms the Amendments therein to be directed towards both the corporate body of the people AND to the INDIVIDUAL private citizen!

    Nice attempt, but you really should turn off the television, and open a history book now and then.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 7:56 PM
  • *

    More on this subject, so to enlighten the ignorant:

    The intent of the Second Amendment is made more clearly stated with the following quotes:

    As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution:

    "The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?

    Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right 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." Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

    "The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

    "The advantage of being armed... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations is this... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.

    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 8:23 PM
  • *

    One more thought to add ... Note that Amendment Three - which pertains to the quartering of "soldiers" into private homes during peacetime and wartime - specifically uses the term SOLDIERS, and NOT "militia." So, there again, indirectly is the distinction made between a "state guard" or "colonial army" of professional soldiers, and the common man who would comprise the body of the citizen "militia!"

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 8:37 PM
  • Wow Bruce, thanks for the history lesson. "well regulated" does not mean, well regulated. "Militia" does not mean militia. I wonder what the words "keep" and "bare" meanings were? Perhaps the founders were talking about short sleeves when they mentioned "arms"

    They had muskets back then. Tell you what, you can have all the muskets you want.

    -- Posted by president obama on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 10:46 PM
  • Another question Bruce, are there any limitations concerning "executive privilege"? Can the POTUS actually enact new laws, or just order enforcement of existing laws?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 7:55 AM
  • *

    To "El Presidente:"

    Be advised - you cannot educate the willfully ignorant, nor reform the arrogantly stupid.

    To CB: Here is a good discussion on the subject:


    The following discussion is quoted from text at provided link:

    *** Begin citation ***

    "... The granting of the "executive Power" to the President is not a blank check giving him power to do whatever he wants. The "executive Power" is merely the power to put into effect -- to implement -- those Acts of Congress which are within Congress' enumerated powers. Thus, if Congress establishes "an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), it is the President's duty to implement and enforce the law Congress makes. The President is to carry out -- to execute -- Acts of Congress. ..."

    " ... The Guiding Principle is this: The President has no authority to do ANYTHING apart from constitutional authority or statutory authority (assuming the statute itself is constitutional).

    1. Respecting those matters within his constitutional authority & duties, and authority & duties imposed by constitutional statutes, the President may make "orders" -- call them "executive orders" if you like.

    For example: It is the President's constitutional duty "to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Thus, he has the duty to enforce [constitutional] laws made by Congress. How does he enforce the laws? Sometimes, by means of "orders".

    To illustrate: Say Congress makes a law, as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 6, making it a felony to counterfeit the Securities and current Coin of the United States. If U.S. Attorneys are not prosecuting counterfeiters, the President should "order" them to do it. Or fire them.

    But say Congress makes a law which purports to make possession of shotguns shorter than 18 inches a crime. Since the President's Oath requires him to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution", he is obligated to "order" the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorneys to refuse to prosecute anyone for possession of sawed-off shotguns. Why? Because such a "law" is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress in Our Constitution. It also violates the Second Amendment.

    Clearly, such an order to refuse prosecution falls within the President's constitutional duties (enforce the Constitution), and he is giving an order to people within the Executive Branch. The President is the one who is charged with carrying out the Acts of Congress -- he has the "executive Power". But because of his Oath, he may not carry out unconstitutional "laws". That is one of the checks on Congress.

    The President may also properly make orders addressing housekeeping issues within the Executive Branch: Dress codes, no smoking or drinking on the job, he may encourage executive agencies to hire qualified handicapped people, and the like. Just as if you have a business, you may make orders addressing such matters.

    So! Do you see? The President may lawfully make orders to carry out his constitutionally imposed powers and duties, and powers bestowed by statutes which are constitutional; and he may address "housekeeping" issues within the Executive Branch.

    2. But a President may not lawfully, by means of "orders", exercise powers not delegated to him by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress.

    Yet Obama has issued various executive orders which are unlawful because they are not authorized by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress. Here are two executive orders which are particularly pernicious because they undermine our foundational Principle of "Federalism", and have as their object the "improper consolidation of the States into one ... republic." ..."

    *** End citation ***

    The fact is that executive orders are not specifically stipulated among the constitutionally granted powers of the Presidency, but they are implied, only insofar that they comport to the will of Congress in implementing legislation that has is properly signed into law; and as an issue of complying with the president's oath of office "to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution for the United States."

    So, if Obama signs an E.O., the intent of which is to purpously circumvent congress and the Constitution, then he is committing a serious breech of his vested powers, is liable to impeachment for such, and his "orders" MUST be forcefully resisted by the citizens. "Law by fiat" is no law at all -- it is rather is tyranny operating under the "color of law."

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 9:13 AM
  • A lesson I have learned after trying to educate you bruce

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 4:00 PM
  • *

    To the Imposture "president" ... Since you want to converse as an ignorant fool, provoking a learned man, I shall be quite happy to rub your obstinate nose into the dirt! Read the following, and educate yourself out of the corner you have backed into ...

    The Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL'S right to own military rifles and handguns

    Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982) "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a military-style firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."

    The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense and that when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

    *Courts have used the Second Amendment to strike down gun control: Nunn v. State and in re Brickey are two examples where the Courts have struck down gun control laws using the Second Amendment.

    *An individual right protected: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

    *U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). "'The people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution and it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

    *U.S. v. Lopez (1995). The Court struck down a federal law which prevented the possessing of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court argued that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in no way grants Congress the authority to enact such gun control legislation.

    *Printz v. U.S. (1997). The Supreme Court ruled the federal government could not force state authorities to conduct so-called Brady background checks on gun buyers.

    *Majority of the Supreme Court cases clearly point to an individual right. In a mammoth work produced January 2004, three authors reprinted and analyzed the dozens of Supreme Court cases that have referenced the Second Amendment. Their conclusion? "These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments."

    Fourteenth Amendment (1868):

    *The framers of the 14th Amendment intended to protect an individual's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by striking down state laws that denied this right. As stated by Senate subcommittee in 1982, "During the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to guarantee against state action."

    *Firearm Owners' Protection Act (1986): The 1986 Law affirms individual right to keep and bear arms: "The Congress finds that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution... require[s] additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies."

    Nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to pass gun control legislation (see U.S. v. Lopez, 1995). Since the adoption of the Constitution, courts have ruled on both sides of the issue, indicating that judges are just as political as the common man.

    The Second Amendment militia is NOT the "National Guard!"

    The Founding Fathers made it clear that the Militia was composed of the populace at large. Both the Congress and Supreme Court have affirmed this definition of the Militia.

    1. Founding Fathers

    *George Mason: "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

    *Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty..."

    *Richard Henry Lee: To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... The mind that aims at a select militia like the National Guard, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

    2. U.S. Congress

    *The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The Act stated: "Every citizen...shall provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints"

    The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.

    *U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a military-style firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."

    *Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States"

    3.Supreme Court:

    U.S. v. Miller (1939). In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense and that when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 2:28 AM
  • A learned man? Now that is laughable. I enjoy your rants and I had a bet with a friend of mine I could get you to keep spewing your nonsense.

    Tell me "learned man"'. Do you even have a high school diploma? What is your education? I would be willing to bet you have no college and have never exposed yourself to different philosophy's. no, you are the kind of person who listens to no one with a differing point of view and looks up stuff on the Internet to enforce your warped sence of righteousness.

    If you ever stop and listen to others it would help you on your path to become a learned man.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 9:53 AM
  • I find it odd when one person tells a second person to listen to the "philosophies" of others, while also calling the second person's views nonsense and warped. I would assume, unless the second person is a giant hypocrite, that they have listened to other people's philosophies and come to negative conclusions about some of them on their own. Therefore, with this experience, does that mean that there are certain viewpoints- certain philosophies- that are not beneficial to pay attention to? Or could it simply be that the first person is also one who listens to no one with a differing point of view?

    Still, I'm not sure what there is to be gained in listening to president obama's viewpoints, as they seem to have been little beyond chastising and retorts with little substance relevant to the gun control debate. For all Bruce's returning to argue further, he at least provides substance to his viewpoints. I'm not sure what Bruce would gain from listening to president obama at this point in time, aside from the knowledge that he's providing amusement for him. Maybe it's the realization that president obama isn't going to listen to his views on gun control or provide a good counterargument?

    -- Posted by bjo on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 1:36 AM
  • Bruce is an extremist and I have found the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

    After being oppressed by a professional army the founders did not want to create another full time professional army and believed that armed citizens were the best defense. Times have changed and we now have a professional army to do the job. Does Bruce want to get rid of the active services?

    The founders were wise and if they were here today I believe after watching little children get shot they would not say "we need more guns".

    When was the last mass shooting in England or Ireland? It's got to be 25 years ago or so. Ever wonder why, oh wait I think I know this, they have strict gun laws.

    Bruce only likes one section of the second amendment and says the first part of the amendment doesn't mean what it says. The history of words or some such nonsense, but when you take into historical context of the second amendment and today's need for a standing army the question arises, do we need every able bodied man to own an assault rifle?

    Not to mention the fact, since Bruce is so big on historical context, I said he could own as many muskets as he wanted.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 9:29 AM
  • Then please move to Ireland or England. While mass shooting are down in England, violent crimes are very high because the citizens are unarmed and police are overwhelmed. The same is true for Australia.

    Ireland relies on strict enforcement of laws.

    Besides, this is America. We want the freedom to defend ourselves, and others against evil, whom ever that may be. We welcome that responsibility. Remember, only evil people commit crimes, not the law abiding.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 11:09 PM
  • *

    Dear "Mr. Obama:"

    Any response I make to you is with the desire that you might actually learn some history, rather than continue to spout your confused diatribe against objective facts and reasonable arguments. There will always be evil with us. Depriving the citizens of their only sure means to self-defense will not end evil acts, but rather encourage their bold escalation.

    As for my education. You demonstrate an amazing capacity and willingness to "open mouth and insert foot" ...

    High School Diploma? Check ... Graduated top quarter of class (278 students) and held a 3.6 GPA

    2 years Aeronautical School, Honor graduate, FAA-issued Airframe and Powerplant License.

    3 years' college Legal Studies: Constitutional Law and Massachusetts Case Law ...

    2 years' college Architectural Design: Graduated with Degree and draftsman certification...

    13 years' (part-time, while holding full-time job) college study in Mechanical and Civil Engineering disciplines, with mutiple credit transfers.

    3 years' Catholic college studies in various philosophical, ethics and foreign language studies ...

    Bi-lingual (Spanish)

    So much for your ignorant presumptions of my education. I presented you the objective facts, in their historical context, and with citations.

    You presented nothing of subtance in your patheticly shallow rebuttals. Moreover, sir (or Ma'am, as it may be) I have the courage to use my real name, rather than hide my words behind a false identity. I take responsibility for my words.

    The Constitution is still in force; and whether you agree with its stipulations is irrelevant.

    The intent of the founders - and THEIR "philosophy" - does not become void based on your political whims and social prejudices. Neither does human nature change, nor the tyrannical propensities of governments - all governments. The warnings issued by the founders are as relevant today as they were when first penned. Only fools disregard the lessons of history - and they always do so under the illusion that "times have changed." Yes, times have changed, but man's nature remains the same. We disregard the Constitution, and the philosophy of those who authored it, at our great peril.

    By the way, King George III also called the founders "extremists" - that is the phrase tyrants prefer when desiring to vilify and marginalize those whom they know or suspect will oppose their tyranny. So, I will consider it a compliment, knowing that I am in good company.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:41 AM
  • *

    The truth is always "extreme" to those who despise it.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 10:07 AM
  • Why don't you move to Somali where they have no government. Don't you dare tell me to move, I have as much right as you to try to make this country better.

    I guess it's a good thing violent crime in the us is almost nonexistent because we allow almost anyone who wants an assault rifle to have one.

    Defend yourself? Against what, terrorists? Isn't everyone a non evil law abiding citizen until they break the law? Was Adam Lanza a good law abiding citizen until he shot 20 children.

    Bruce, the court said abortion is constitutional so I assume you support that as well or could the court have been wrong?

    I guess "the constitution is still in force; wether you agree with it or not is irrelevant."

    We can't have any gun laws because of some evil dystopian future that may or may not happen so we continue to live in a current dystopian society that allows the wholesale slaughter of children. Makes perfect sense.

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 12:08 PM
  • *

    Typical liberal response...

    Switch the subject (to abortion)

    Ignore the facts.

    Violent crime exists despite all the gun-control laws on the books -- CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS! Whether it be by use of explosives, firearms, knives, clubs or their bare hands, a person disposed to commit murder and mayhem will do just that. You think Utopia is achievable on Earth - and you would destroy as much of our liberties as possible, so to force your misguided pipe dream on the rest of us.

    Don't dare tell you where to live? Ah - but you will demand that others surrender their constitutionally guaranteed and natural right to self-defense! You arrogant hypocrite! Typical libeal disconnect from reality. You want Utopia? Go live in Cuba ... I am certain they would welcome you into their pen of "well-protected" sheep.

    Abortion is Constitutional? Really? And what of due process? What of the 14th Amendment? The Supreme Court also said slavery was constitutional.

    You conveniently ignore that the Supreme Court also stated in its Roe v Wade decision that should Congress ever declare the unborn child a person - who, by any measure of present biological and medical certainty, is now a provable fact, then the unborn child would be protected under the 14th amendment.

    The contradiction is that if you murder a pregnant woman, you then face TWO counts of homicide - not one.

    "Mr. Obama" - you are pathetic. In reference to gun-control, you write "...we continue to live in a current dystopian society that allows the wholesale slaughter of children..." Yet the irony escapes you that 3000 unborn children are murdered through abortion each day in this country - and that figure is only an estimate, which fails to consider in its total all those children destroyed through chemical contraception (the Pill) which prevents a fertilized egg (a now unique and new individual) from implanting in the womb. Partial birth abortion - which is infanticide - does not disturb you either. And I will bet that, in perfect accord with the words and action of your doppelganger in D.C. - you have no problem leaving those children who survive the abortionist's cruelty to die unattended in some dark corner. But this "massacre" does not even cause you to blink. You, sir (or ma'am) are thus intellectually dishonest in your remarks about killing children.

    You have the gaul to want the slaughter within the womb to continue, unabated, while you parade your high liberal church BS about taking away my right to self-defense, under the pretext of stopping the slaughter of children only a few years older than those defenseless within their mother's womb, and whom you would see killed with zeal!

    What you promote and apparently are quite comfortable with is outright murder sanctioned by the government, under an imaginary right to "privacy" - a convoluted concept of "privacy," invented out of thin air and repugnant to the principles of the Constitution, to take human life without due-process, innocent life at that! However, you would deny myself and others our right to truly constitutional privacy - a privacy that does not condone or promote wanton killing absent just cause - by having our firearms registered You have either no shame -- or else no intelligence.

    The truth, which escapes you, "Mr. Obama," is that we already live in an "evil society," under a tyrannical government that respects neither rights of life, nor to liberty, nor to property ... But, like all your foolishly idealistic peers, you are totally blind to the evil that your misguided ideology has nurtured and caused to flourish. Instead, you would give it more free reign over us. You would have us all slaves, under the pretense of "protecting us." You and your ilk, are perhaps the most dangerous living among us.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 2:27 PM
  • I'm sorry, could you highlight the area where I said I supported abortion? It just seems to me that the courts have been wrong in the past and are not infalliable.

    And what of the liberty of the children who died at sandy hook?

    What you promote and apparently are quite comfortable with is outright murder sanctioned by the government, under an imaginary right for unregulated firearms to be owned by whoever wants them, invented out of thin air and repugnant to the principals of the constitution, to take a human life without due process, innocent life at that.

    Please stop speaking out of boh sides of your mouth Bruce.

    I do love the line "criminals don't obey laws". I actually laughed out loud about that one. So, how many people do you think the guy who shot up the theaters could have killed with his bare hands?

    A guy sped past me the other day and I began to wonder why have a speed limit at all since criminals don't obey them. Then I thought, why have any laws at all since criminals break them. Anarchy, Bruce, anarchy. Lets do it brother. Total anarchy. I'm in

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:22 PM
  • *

    "Mr. Obama"

    You raised the issue of abortion, not I. You imply that the Supreme Court's CREATING a right to abortion is equivalent to the Court upholding a legitimate constitutional amendment - the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which the Court REAFFIRMED to be an individual right. The distinction: In the former, the "right" asserted never existed (a "right" to commit murder could never be an inalienable right!); in the later, the Right was from the beginning of the Republic a stipulated Natural (inalienable) Right of the individual.

    I never stated that we not have any gun laws; neither did I assert or imply we should have anarchy. PRUDENT law that is not repugnant to the Constitution is not the same as tyrannical fiat, the practice of which violates the very letter and intent of the Constitution. Law made external of Congress, or in direct opposition to what the Constitution explicitly protects, is not just law - it is tyranny under the color of law. I understand that distinction. Apparently you do not.

    There is a difference between "ringing" a right out of the Constitution, where such "right" is neither existent explicitly nor implied, and upholding a right that is explicitly defined within the Constitution.

    Further, in the Declaration of Independence we read that inalienable rights (which are the foundation of the Bill of Rights) consist of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (actually property). The 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution protect an individual's rights of due process. Moreover, the 14th Amendment upholds that no State may deprive a citizen of those rights enumerated in the Constitution. Abortion violates these precepts and proscriptions.

    An act of murder by way of abortion is not the "misuse" of a legitimate right, since no right to murder exists. However, an act of homicide by way of using a firearm, absent just cause, is in fact the abuse of a legitimate right. That is the distinction which you attempt to distort.

    It is you who have made this argument about gun-owners being responsible for the "mass killing of children" ... I pointed out your hypocrisy, because you make ridiculous and disproportionate assertions in citing the murder of children by the use of firearms -- ostensibly out of a supreme concern for the welfare of children; and yet you conveniently ignore that single most barbaric method of "killing children - " abortion - a true genocide, whose magnitude of practice dwarfs the violence attributable to the MISUSE of firearms. To quote scripture: You strain a gnat and swallow a camel! Does your sense of injustice get as piqued over the genocide that claims 50,000 children every year? No, you only take issue with murder affected by a misuse of firearms, which pales in comparison, because that serves your agenda. More pointedly, that bit of hypocritical self-serving does not threaten your politically correct prestige. You can mouth off about massacred children and the need to ban firearms, without upsetting those whose favor you so much desire to curry. That bit of indignant fervor risks you nothing at all. In other words, "Mr. Obama," you are nothing more than a coward, puffing yourself in a pretentious show for your fellow liberal know-nothings.

    You write of anarchy. Deprive the American citizens of their only sure means to self-defense and you will experience true anarchy!

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 10:57 AM
  • *

    "Mr. Obama:"

    Regarding methods used for committing mass murder ...

    Although an experienced marksman, Timothy McVeigh did not use a firearm to commit his killing spree at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, he used commonly obtained ingredients - fertilizer and diesel fuel. Neither did Andrew Kehoe use a firearm when, on May 18, 1927, at Bath Consolidated School in Bath (Lansing) Michigan. Kehoe used dynamite to kill 45 people - 38 of whom were children. In fact: "... a short circuit in Kehoe's wiring was the only thing that stopped the attack from claiming more lives, as more than 500 pounds of dynamite and several sacks of gunpowder were found under a portion of the building that remained standing. If the explosion had gone as planned, Bath's entire downtown might have been destroyed."

    I could cite you case after case where such atrocities were accomplished without the use of a firearm. It takes nothing more than an evil determination to affect mass murder - if not by the use of a firearm, then by whatever is convenient or within the capabilities of the individual. Bleach combined with ammonia will produce a fatal concentration of chlorine gas. Carbon monoxide kills without even giving its victims a hint of their impending doom. There are dozens of ways to commit mass murder - firearms is but one.

    The only thing that more "gun-control" will accomplish is to place further chains on law-abiding citizens. The criminal element within society will not be deterred from its intended quest; but will merely find other means -- including obtaining firearms from "underground" sources.

    Meanwhile the law-abiding citizens will be disarmed or made severely restricted targets - and not only for the criminal element, but also for a government that knows the citizenry cannot offer any real resistance to its tyranny.

    The irony is that gun control only increases the likelyhood of violence - and this fact is born out in every case where "gun-free zones" are in place. It is also demonstrated to be so in every culture that has surrendered its weapons to the government - always for the cause of public safety - and then lived to experienced genocide.

    But what would a man such as yourself know about the facts of history?

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:33 AM
  • *

    Regarding "speed limit signs" and speeding ...

    Perhaps if we post those restrictions every 10, 20 or 30 feet -- down the entire length of every road, highway, and interstate in the U.S. ... THEN those damnable demons of reckless acceleration will finally stop breaking the law? After all, by your measure, all we need do to stop criminal behavior is enact more laws.

    However, I contend that, even if no speed limit were posted, those inclined to drive recklessly would still do so, just as those inclined to drive responsible would still do so. It is not the number and severity of laws that make a civil society; but rather it is the character of the society that determines its civility ...

    Which brings us full circle back to the article I wrote in December: The Consequence of Mass Hypocrisy. Read it. You cannot cultivate disrespect for life - in all its stages - and then hope laws will prevent the inevitable fallout of such philosophies.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 12:06 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: