Friday, January 25, 2013

ObamaCare Insurance Denied for Gun Owners

Our report on the intersection between ObamaCare and Gun Control entitled "ObamaCare Insurance Will Not Cover Gun Owners" outlines a theoretical strategy in which the second amendment of the constitution may be subverted.

This approach has three steps, which you can review in the previous article in more detail.

  1. Link health and gun ownership in the media and public perception
  2. Classify guns as a public health issue
  3. After ObamaCare becomes America's "single-payer" for health insurance, deny gun owners health insurance coverage.
The following C-SPAN clip serves as evidence of steps one and two. It is only 30 seconds in length and outlines the intentions behind the Youth Promise Act. Unfortunately, I was not able to embed the clip, so click the image below.

Rep. Bobby Scott, Democrat Virginia 3rd District

The full C-SPAN program can be reviewed here. If you REALLY want to go overboard, here is another hearing on gun control by the same group of anti-civil rights activists.

Update 4/1/2013: 

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who do not have firearm insurance.

Friday, January 18, 2013

ObamaCare Insurance Will Not Cover Gun Owners

Caution: Tyranny Ahead

Following is the list of President Obama's 23 executive orders on "gun violence." We are highlighting the  orders that we believe will be used to vilify gun owners and report them through health care providers. The end goal is to declare gun ownership a public health threat and then deny health insurance to gun owners when ObamaCare morphs into the "single-payer" health insurance provider in America.
  1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
  2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
  3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
  4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
  5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
  6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
  7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
  8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
  9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
  10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
  11. Nominate an ATF director.
  12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
  13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
  14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
  15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
  16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
  17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
  18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
  19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
  20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
  21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
  22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
  23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
There are three steps in this process revealed by these new executive orders.

Step one is to create a linkage between mental health and gun ownership background checks. Executive orders 1,2,3 and 4 address this linkage. Once that connection is established, gun ownership background check information is integrated with individual medical information. This information directs ObamaCare, Medicare and other government financed health care professionals to question and evaluate gun owners during normal medical care per orders 16 and 17.

Background check information reveals gun ownership or attempts at gun ownership. Health professionals might then be trained to "flag" gun owners for reasons including:
  • Denial of gun ownership by known gun owners (lying)
  • Threats of violence
  • Violent behavior
  • Abusiveness (verbal or behavioral)
  • Observed violent or abusive behavior toward one's self
The key to understanding how this can be exploited is to understand the intentional vagueness of the directives. Administrators are enabled to interpret the executive orders as best suits the goals of the anti-second amendment agenda. 

Step two is to classify guns as a public health issue per orders 4, 14, 15 and 23. Order 15 addresses technology including information technology like databases for tracking gun owners and assigning mental health issues. More importantly, statistics are often driven by the ability to identify and/or report.

Closer scrutiny of gun owners will naturally create more reported illnesses with a correlation to gun ownership. This is particularly true for the most common reasons people visit their doctor. This statistical bias also occurs when mandates drive what doctors look for during their time with patients. We might expect to see future headline such as:

  • "Gun Ownership Linked to Erectile Dysfunction"
  • "High Blood Pressure and Glaucoma Associated with Gun Owners"
  • "Report: Gun Owners More Verbally Abusive"

"Experts" will use these flawed statistics to further fear and misunderstanding of gun ownership.

Step three occurs after ObamaCare becomes the "single-payer" insurance in America. The stated goal of ObamaCare in liberal circles is to end private insurance. The argument that Medicare has less administrative cost than private insurance is an example of this train of thought. The core argument is that "capitalism is evil" and cares about "profits over people."

Medicare administrative costs exclude the collection costs which are handled by the IRS through the tax system. Private insurance considers this as accounts receivable, an administrative cost. Further, Medicare has federal law enforcement agencies to pursue people who violate the system and public grants to social workers across the country to sign up new customers. Private companies must employ lawyers and sales people in these roles. All of these uncounted costs show the "low cost Medicare" argument to be a farce.

Once "single-payer" ObamaCare becomes a reality, gun owners will be denied coverage in ObamaCare insurance as public health threats. This possibility is hinted at by executive orders 20,21 and 22. Gun owners could then be fined per ObamaCare insurance tax mandates.  This gets around fining people directly for gun ownership in violation of second amendment civil rights protections.

Court challenges that occur prior to ObamaCare becoming the "single-payer" health insurance in America can be used to provide precedent. ObamaCare defenders will argue that "private health insurance is a valid alternative to avoid the mandatory fine". The argument will change to "ObamaCare is not responsible for the availability or affordability of private insurance" after ObamaCare becomes America's "single-payer" insurance.

If this theory has flaws, please let us know...


We found a Congressional Research Service paper by William J. Krouse from February 3, 2011 that points out enacted legislation which directly contradicts President Obama's Executive Orders listed above as 16 and 17:

Prohibiting data collection on gun ownership or higher premiums for gun owners who are beneficiaries of healthcare wellness programs (P.L. 111-148).


This articles is referring to "executive orders" per news reports, but these are actually "executive actions".


Here is an article outlining the battle in Oregon between the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) privacy provisions and the The Drug Enforcement Administration attempts at accessing the private information without a warrant.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Forcible Rape Jumps 26.76% in San Diego (Updated)

The FBI released voluntarily reported crime statistics for cities and the nation. The Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2012 shows a slight national uptick in violent crime of 1.9% from 2011. In San Diego, rape is up by 26.76% and overall violent crime has increased by 7.87%.

San Diego has not reported a significant number of additional murders, 40 during the first half of 2012 compared with 39 during the previous year. While some Police point out that area murders in 2012 have included several gang related killings, the overall rate of murder in the county is nearly flat.

FBI Crime Stats, By the NumbersEarlier this year we reported on a 26% increase in rapes per the San Diego Association of Governments, but the two statistics are fundamentally different. The Union Tribute points to the rape definition from earlier this year:
The number of rapes increased by 26 percent, with 376 reported from January to June. At least part of the increase can be attributed to a wider definition of rape that went into effect in January. The new definition includes any gender of victim or perpetrator, as well as instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.
The FBI statistics use "Forcible Rape," a term you may recall from the 2012 election. The media did not report the fact that this is an important distinction in crime reporting and legislation.

Forcible rapes in the San Diego area increased from 213 during the first half of 2011 to 270 during the same period in 2012. This is a similar percentage increase, but the numbers differ drastically.

FBI U.S. Crime Statistics Year by Year
A year over year trend in FBI crime statistics shows that this is the first uptick in violent crime in several years. There are a couple explanations at work.

Some pundits are blaming the poor economy, but some of the San Diego areas hardest hit by the economy are not showing a correlation. The same problem arises when left wing pundits point to gun possession. El Cajon, California shows a 24.8% decrease in violent crime, a 20% decrease in rape and a 24.8% decrease in assaults. El Cajon is an area associated with gun ownership in San Diego.

2012 FBI Crime Statistics San DiegoCarlsbad, Escondido and Temecula have seen sharp increases in reported forcible rapes. These areas are all similar in population size compared to El Cajon, but are more secluded. "Open Carry" was outlawed in California beginning in January 2012. This may point out that scarcely populated areas without the protection of firearms are targeted by criminals.

Another explanation may be prison realignment (AB109). 10 News reports:
San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne said gangs are growing as a result of the state's prison realignment with California wardens shifting tens of thousands of inmates to county jail cells or providing early release.

"We're seeing about a thousand additional people out of prison and they don't have quite the level of oversight they would normally have and it's pretty clear that it's having some effect on the gangs and they're being more aggressive than before," Lansdowne said.

Gang violence is up 34 percent, he said.
Anecdotal evidence supports the Police Chief, but this is a difficult case to make. City by city across California the results of prison realignment are mixed per the Sacremento Bee.
"The state is not collecting data on this," Krisberg said. "I think it is scandalous."
My theory is that prison realignment, illegal immigration, police budgetary restrictions and the banning of Open Carry laws have produced a net effect. Where people are not armed and police are understaffed, crime is exploding. Elsewhere, criminals now understand that Californians are defenseless and our criminal system is not capable of punishing them for crimes when caught.

While this report is focused on the latest FBI report, 2012 full year statistics on murder is being locally reported:
The murder rate in San Diego was up almost 20 percent in 2012 from the year before, and in San Diego County, the numbers increased by almost 23 percent.
The FBI murder statistics for San Diego during January to June 2012 show an increase of only 8% (25 to 27), which leads to the conclusion that these problems must be growing...and we are legally prohibited from protecting ourselves.


Police chiefs from around San Diego confirmed my suspicion that the increase in crime is due to the "Open Carry" ban. UT San Diego's Pauline Repard issued a report that three police chiefs from San Diego jumped to support President Obama's 23 executive orders on "gun violence." Can you guess which three?
“I was pleasantly surprised when I heard him take a comprehensive approach,” said Carlsbad Police Chief Gary Morrison. “I liked the way he talked about the medical community and the impact of video games on kids, and money to law enforcement and schools to craft emergency response plans.”
“You could not find a bigger supporter of the president than myself today,” said San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne. “It makes my officers safer and it’s going to make the community safer.”
Chula Vista Police Chief David Bejarano said most people in law enforcement welcome the additional measures the president is proposing.
Maybe this is a biased view and the hardest hit police chiefs are simply grasping for solutions to problems. However this looks like anti-gun police chiefs, and Sheriff Gore if you read the full story, reduce the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their property. For these San Diego police chiefs overall violent crime is up 8.32% and forcible rape is up 37.16%. The FBI report shows a 6.29% increase in violent crime and a 3.08% uptick in forcible rape for the other San Diego police chiefs.

In Carlsbad forcible rape skyrocketed 275% and violent crime overall is up 73.42%. On the bright side, there were no murders in the first half of 2012 and auto theft was slightly down. Robbery, aggravated
assault, property crime, burglary and larceny-theft increased.

Chula Vista shows a 16% decrease in reported violent crime due to less aggravated assaults. The FBI report also show a 14.3% increase in forcible rape and increased burglaries, auto theft and property crimes.

Hopefully unrelated, yet interestingly, Chula Vista's police chief David Bejarano had reported ties to Mexican drug gangs and has been accused of writing bad checks.

The city of San Diego shows a 9.55% increase in violent crime and the numbers look to be getting worse as described above.

A full spreadsheet of statistics with my calculations is available here. The stats have been added as an enclosure to this post.

CBS News 8
UT San Diego
10 News
Sacremento Bee

Monday, January 14, 2013

I Want My Buck and a Half Back

Congressman Mike Thompson

Congressman Mike Thompson wants to give us our tax money back. He offered a man named Patrick Mulhany "a buck and a half" during a recent public forum on "gun violence." The money seems to be in compensation for not representing the man's point of view on gun control. As you know, congressmen are elected to represent the people, but only because of their tax based salary.

Congressman Thompson was brave enough to hold a public forum on stopping "gun violence" in Santa Rosa, California. During the proceedings many people made excellent points and offered interesting supporting facts. The entire episode is available on C-SPAN titled "Gun Violence Prevention Public Forum."

Patrick Mulhany was interrupt by Congressman Thompson. When Mr. Mulhany reminded the Congressman that his job is paid for by his constituents, the congressman offered a refund. Here is a short clip of the event, titled "Buck and a Half Back." (

Contact Congressman Mike Thompson by clicking here and ask for your "Buck and a Half Back." It is not clear if the offer is good for everyone or just Mr. Mulhany.

Friday, January 11, 2013

The SLOBs Want YOU!
San Diego has an active tea party movement. We are part of a group called The San Diego Local Order of Bloggers, the SLOBs, and this is a way we are making a difference.

The city, state and country seem at odds with individual liberties, but as they say "all politics is local" and we are the grassroots defenders of civil rights. We are individuals who have studied the problems of humanity and concluded that the "common good" is a facade espoused by those who lust for power to miseducated followers. We know that the highest moral good is individual freedom.

There are many national organizations that claim the mantle of defenders of freedom and wave the smaller government banner, but they do not seem to be producing results. My personal belief is that these organizations were founded nobly, but often run astray due to a lack of accountability to supporters.

For example, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has assisted in alienating the entire Ron Paul movement which may have cost the Presidency. He is also failing to effectively deal with President Obama on the fiscal cliff or national debt. The debt issue is coincidentally of paramount importance to the various freedom movements, including the Ron Paul movement. Nevertheless, John Boehner was just confirmed as the Republican Speaker of the House.

The national tea party organizations are similarly stuck in a bad position. By collecting local monies through donation drives they hope to purchase influence on the national scene. However, draining local resources hurts the growth of the movement. It exposes the movement to high level corruption instead of utilizing the low level competition of ideas representative of the ethics and ideals of the movement.

How many people are selling tea party t-shirts or becoming tea party organizers at the moment? Not enough. There is not enough money at the local level to organize. It is either taken by a political party or a national tea party organization.  The power hungry leftists infiltrate rich charitable organizations, use public financing (i.e. ACORN and Planned Parenthood) and legally enforce union dues to pay for organizing locally.

The Republican Party and national tea party organizations seem to be blaming each other for failures at the moment. This is a dangerous cycle that the media and other collectivists push in order to divide the supporters of individual civil rights. The left is masterful at dividing people into groups in order to subjugate them.

Further, the large freedom promoting organizations are vilified by a mostly hostile media and used to limit the number of sources of our message. Notice that the NRA is currently the spokesman for the entire second amendment. Demonize the NRA and the arguments they make are demonized as well.

There is a marketing theory stating "people believe what they are told from three sources." Reliance upon one messaging source doesn't sell. A hundred spokesmen for liberty is more effective than a sole expert voice.

This is where individuals matter more than a political party or a national organization. You can have an impact beginning with the people around you by applying your unique abilities free of organizational hindrance. Conservatives are "go-getters" and individualists who are uniquely capable of innovation and perseverance. is our innovation in the battle for liberty. It is our social networking machine and an example of what can be accomplished by a few people and determination. On this blog, a post describes "How to Promote Freedom on" It is a menu option at the top of The SLOBs website titled "How To Use." However, we want to explain, what the SLOBs website is.


Our website is technically a blog aggregator with search engine optimization and social networking automation. Each time a blogger adds a new article, the article pops up on the website, Facebook, Twitter and in our Android App. Because the article is automatically available in several places on the internet , the article gains better position in search engines.


The website is intuitive and promotes our fellow bloggers work. It keeps us reading and commenting on each other's work to promote the collaboration of ideas. The collaboration is not managed which maximized innovation by allowing us to pursue stories and ideas. Many great ideas are built on the shoulders of other great ideas. In a battle of ideas, this is a tremendous advantage.  Because the fact that our bloggers hold diverse perspectives, the SLOBs is a rich collaborating team.

Users find and share our articles on any social networking site from one central location at Ironically, the one social networking site that does not interact directly with our site is, but they are working on it. Each time a user shares an article, it helps everyone gain possible readers and improves the search engine ranking of the post.

We are integrated with a Facebook, and my personal Twitter account automatically tweets every article based upon blog "labels". At the bottom of the website is a "wire network" feed based on the top story from the bloggers at the moment. The wire network adds a hard news element.

The website automatically updates about every four hours, but can be manually updated via a blue refresh button. The site also integrates with an android app that has a few extra features like search and storage of stories. A Windows 8 App is in the works.

The features of the website are cool, but the power is found in expanding the reach of freedom fighters. The bloggers do not see the app statistics, but since Sept 2011 the android app has added 115,658 reads. The biggest uncommon usage of the our RSS feed is on, a social networking aggregator.

What You Can Do

Personally, I am a Microsoft Certified Solution Developer and a Silver Microsoft Partner for Small Business. This project required determination on my part, but it is successful because of the participation of the bloggers and organizers involved.  Success required the larger effort of a small group of motivated individuals.

This solution can be customized to other freedom minded groups with some aesthetic changes by contacted me. The real question is what your skills, talents and effort can produce. Only you can answer that...

Monday, January 7, 2013

Moodys: The Debt Limit Will Not Cause U.S. Debt Default

Democrat Doo Doo Economics
The following is directly from July 2011 from Moody's while President Obama and the left were crying that the U.S. would default if the debt limit was not raised. This argument was never true, either in part or in spirit.  The U.S. debt service is about 6% of the budget and even without additional debt, taxes pay for about 69% of government expenditures. (bold and underline ours)


The review of the US government's bond rating is prompted by the possibility that the debt limit will not be raised in time to prevent a missed payment of interest or principal on outstanding bonds and notes. As such, there is a small but rising risk of a short-lived default.

Moody's considers the probability of a default on interest payments to be low but no longer to be de minimis. An actual default, regardless of duration, would fundamentally alter Moody's assessment of the timeliness of future payments, and a Aaa rating would likely no longer be appropriate. However, because this type of default is expected to be short-lived, and the expected loss to holders of Treasury bonds would be minimal or non-existent, the rating would most likely be downgraded to somewhere in the Aa range.


While the debt limit has been raised numerous times in the past, and sometimes the issue has been contentious, bond interest and principal have always been paid on time. If the debt limit is raised again and a default avoided, the Aaa rating would likely be confirmed. However, the outlook assigned at that time to the government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative at the conclusion of the review unless substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government debt to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.
Of course, President Obama refuses any meaningful action to control spending and has continued to increase the ratio of federal government debt to GDP. Consequently, the U.S. debt rating was changed to Aaa with a negative outlook.  The left-wing media then attempted to portray that the downgrade was due to the debt limit fight and pointed to Moody's to make their false argument. They lied.

The worst offender to the truth was HBO's "The Newsroom." This blog helped expose the insane accusation that American conservatives are the "American Taliban" per this show. Click the link above for more information.

Additonal Moody's reviews can be found here.

The current Moody's  review is available to registered Moody's users here. If you do not have access we have provided a pdf here and as an enclosure. In this review from December 2012, Moody's outlines their expectations for a U.S. Government default. (bold and underline ours)
If the extraordinary measures are exhausted, the federal government will only be authorized to spend an amount equal to incoming revenues.  During the last fiscal year, revenues were equivalent to 69% of expenditures.  If this ratio were the same in the current fiscal year, government spending would have to be reduced by 31%.  Which expenditures, including interest payments, would be cut would be decided by the administration, which has not said in the past how it would prioritize its obligations.
Moody’s believes it is likely that interest payments on bonds and notes held by the public, which accounted for about 6% of total federal expenditures in the last fiscal year, would receive high priority under such a scenario.  While this is by no means certain, action to increase the statutory debt limit is highly likely.  Even if Congress does not raise the limit before January 1, we would expect them to act before the Treasury exhausts the variety of measures as they have done many times in the past.  A history of the statutory debt limit is discussed at length in our February 2011 special comment.

Eventual action to increase the debt limit is highly likely. Our baseline assumption is that Congress will raise the limit prior to severe expenditure cuts being necessary. This expectation is based on the long history of debt limit increases, the vast majority of which have occurred before the limit is actually reached. Some increases in the limit have been contentious and this is particularly likely to occur when one political party has a majority in the House of Representatives and the other occupies the White House, as is currently the case. While we may consider a review for downgrade, such a rating action may not become necessary, even if action to raise the debt limit is delayed for a period of time because the risk of default will likely remain extremely low. As a general practice, we place ratings under review when the probability of a rating change is substantial, such as 25% or more. Considering the history of the debt limit and the speed with which compromises can be reached, we believe it is still unlikely that this condition will be reached during the political negotiating process.  We see a high probability that there will be a political compromise, even if it has a last minute nature.
As we said in October, the direction of the US government bond rating will most likely be determined by the outcome of budget negotiations that are ongoing and may well extend into 2013. In particular, if budget negotiations lead to specific policies that produce a stabilization and then downward trend in the ratio of federal debt to GDP over the medium term, the rating will likely be affirmed and the outlook returned to stable.  If those negotiations fail to produce a plan that includes such policies, we would expect to lower the rating, probably to Aa1.  
The next time that you are told to believe that the debt limit DEBATE is the cause of the U.S. credit downgrades, smell the Democrat Doo Doo Economics being flung upon you.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Guns are Civil Rights

Guns are Civil Rights


Normally this blog would be talking about the so called "fiscal cliff" deal. The outcome of the deal is horrific for the economy and only slightly better than if the we had just fallen off the "cliff." President Obama reportedly was asked by House Speaker John Boehner what he would get in exchange for increased taxes and was told, "You get nothing. I get that for free." So, the entire episode has been about the sociopathic mentality of our president. There is nothing more to add as this is not about economics or policy, it is only about power.


Recently I have been confronted by many people on both sides of the political spectrum who have been mislead by the media about guns. The media is sensationalizing the tragedy in the "gun free" school zone in Connecticut by reporting the story as if he had a machine gun and calling his weapons "rapid fire." So, here are a few facts.

You cannot buy a machine gun at K-Mart.

Semi-automatic weapons have no greater capability of "rapid fire" than an old west style six shooter revolvers. They may be able to hold more ammo in a magazine or drum than a revolver.

Semi-automatic simply means a weapon is not a revolver, but loads the next round of ammo. Normally the next round of ammo is loaded via a spring instead of a revolver action.

Machine guns are automatic weapons.

The average gun owner cannot change a semi-automatic weapon into a full automatic weapon or load a high capacity drum magazine of ammo. To do either would require significant training. Most military personnel could not convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic weapons do not fire repeatedly if you hold down the trigger.

Machine guns fire big bullets, like rifle bullets or even larger.

Submachine guns fire pistol rounds, like the "Tommy Gun" famous in the 1920's. This is the prototype of a "assault weapon."
The Thompson submachine gun or Tommy gun was invented by General John T. Thompson, it was the first hand held machine gun. Thompson was driven with the thought of creating a hand held machinegun that would help end the First World War, However, "the first shipment of prototype guns destined for Europe arrived at the docks in New York city on November 11, 1918, the day the War ended."
"Assault Weapons" are automatic weapons. They are machine guns or submachine guns. The first modern assault weapon was the "storm rifle," StG 44 created by the socialist tyrants we know as the NAZI party. NAZI is German shortened from National Socialist Party.
 literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault") an enemy position"
You cannot buy an assault weapon or any automatic weapon without a federal license in the United States. The license entitles the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to inspect the weapon at any time.

There are separate models of guns for the military and law enforcement personnel that are not available to private citizens. Many guns may look the same, but privately available guns fire smaller bullets and are not automatic weapons. The reason they look the same is for marketability in the open market.


Now that we are on the same page about the definition of semi-automatic weapons, lets discuss why they are important.

Imagine that you are arrested for murder. Readers of this blog are obviously innocent of such a crime, but how is our judicial system set up to ensure that innocent people are not convicted of crimes? 

First, we have a  police force that is comprised of screened, respectable and honorable citizens. Next we have a judicial system comprised of judges so honorable they are referred to as "Your Honor." Finally, we have a trial by jury system that ensures that your peers, who are unbiased toward you, decide your fate. The government is there to protect you on three levels.

Wait a second, what did we forget... the prosecutor. OK, so one professional is entrusted to decide who to prosecute and who should not be prosecuted. There are four levels of government protecting you. 

So, you have been arrested for a murder, which we know that you did not commit. The police have put you in jail. The prosecutor schedules a hearing before the judge and the judge will decide if a trial by jury is required. 

We must have forgotten something else, because you are not likely a professionally trained criminal attorney who could mount the best defense of your life and liberty. You likely do not know the procedures of the court or rules of evidence. As a matter of fact, under these circumstances, you are completely dependent upon the good nature of the people in government. People who do not know you and are likely to face the worst elements of society on a daily basis. 

Call me a cynic, but there is a pretty good chance your goose is cooked. There must be some reason they arrested you. The people on the jury are going to think the same thing. Further, that flashy prosecutor has convicted a whole lot of people and knows what he is doing. 

As a matter of fact, I have my reservations that even the Honorable Judge would be able to give you an unbiased trial in these circumstances. All the information will be coming from the prosecutor, who must believe you are guilty. Moreover, you have been sitting in jail for a few weeks, and it shows.

Wait a second, you have the right to an attorney. You have a civil right to a professionally trained, criminal defense attorney who has not been sitting in jail, who knows the rules of the court and who can mount a defense of your life and liberty. You have an equalizer!


Even with four levels of government protection, you have a civil right to defend your life and liberty. Doesn't that sounds like the exact reason for your second amendment civil right to bare arms?

Bill O'Reilly

The other day Bill O'Reilly on The Factor made the comment that "if the American military is coming for you, a gun won't matter."  He made this comment in response the thousands of letters reminding him that one of the reasons for the second amendment was to ensure the government did not become a tyranny. 

Couldn't the exact same argument be made from a legal stand point, "if the American government wants to put you in jail, an attorney won't matter."  The IRS Tax code is so convoluted that no one has complied with every interpretation of every rule. There are certainly other regulations and laws which most everyone is unaware. Each such interpretation of a regulation or law could be used to overpower even the best legal defense team. Regardless, our civil right to a defense attorney stands as an equalizer to the power of the government. This is the difference between a subject and a citizen, a check and balance of power.

It may be that Mr. O'Reilly fails to understand the argument. The reason that the Empire of Japan did not invade U.S. soil was, in the words of General Isoroku Yamamoto, 
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." (Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur])
The same could be said of the American military. If presented an order to forcefully suppress the American people, conservatives in the ranks would resist. As a last resort, the citizenry would prove that, "The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants."
According to Ammoland, more guns were purchased last year in the United States than than there are active duty military members in the world’s fourteen largest armies combined




Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...