Time to Ban Bathtubs and Toilets

I have mentioned before that I frequent a website named Opposing Views.  I was there again a few days ago and read an article I could not let slide.  Read the article here if you want to.  I would read it if I were you, but if you only have a few minutes, here is my response to the Freedom States Alliance’s argument:

Using the same logic that the fear mongers and freedom haters at the “Freedom” States Alliance uses, we should immediately ban the sale and possession of every container that can hold more than 2 inches of water. That may sound extreme, but what you are about to read will hopefully help to provide you with some insight on just how dangerous guns are not when compared to other things that we consider “normal” and “fun”.

In 2005, the last year with full data available, the CDC reports 404 firearm related deaths total for children under the age of 14, that is inclusive of the 75 that were unintentional. Also in 2005 there were 1,748 non-fatal firearm related injuries. I will grant to anyone that these numbers are too high and something needs to be done to reduce that number, I just vehemently disagree with the anti-rights gun control groups out there as to what that something should be. I believe that education is the road to fewer firearm accidents and that when children know what a gun is and how dangerous it is, they are less likely to want to play with it or do something that will cause injury to them or others. By that same token, the gun control groups say that there should be no guns in the home, or if they are in the home that they need to be locked away in a place that the children cannot access them in any way. The problem with this method is that if somehow the children do get access to the gun they are far more likely to be so curious about the firearm that they will want to investigate further and that is when the accidents will happen.

During that same year there were 856 fatal drownings of children age 14 or younger and 2,780 non-fatal drownings or water incidents where a child was hospitalized for injuries from being in water but did not die. Now correct me if my math is wrong, but that means that more the twice the number of children died that year from drowning than did from firearms, and an even more applicable comparison since 810 of the 856 drowning deaths were unintentional, that rate is over 10 times higher than the unintentional rate of death by firearms. Also 1,032 more children were injured in water in the U.S. than were injured by firearms.

I have 3 children of my own and don’t want them to be hurt or die in any way, but I have to be realistic in how I view the world. I cannot protect them from everything, so the only thing that I can do is help to prepare them for they might face in the world. My kids may come in contact with a gun outside of my control and I want to know that they will understand that real guns are not toys and do the right thing, which is to leave the gun alone and tell an adult (who hopefully knows what the hell they are doing since so many people are afraid of firearms these days). I also know that my job as a parent is not to remove all the risk in life, but to help my children learn how to manage risk, and to make the most sensible decision in every situation.

By the way, I think I may have inadvertently just made the case for the Brady Campaign Against Bodies of Water or the Bathtub and Pool Policy Center. Oops… sorry Home Depot, you may have to start doing background checks on everyone who wants to buy a tub or an above ground pool, and we’ll have to watch for those straw bathers out there.

Stay safe, keep your powder dry, your ammo ready and your eye on the front sight.

Matt

 

A Newly Discovered Right? Wrong!

As we all continue to digest the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, it is irritating, annoying and downright maddening (not to mention sadly disheartening) to see how the media is uneducated, the illuminati (sometimes referred to as Professors) are entrenched in their propaganda and the masses don’t know which way to go, or how to think when they get there.

 

First, I want to address what the Supreme Court actually said, some (I am not educated enough in the law to tell you all) of the implications this ruling has and what reaction and attitude we should espouse moving forward. 

 

The Supreme Court did not abolish all gun control laws in the country; in fact, they specified that reasonable restrictions are allowed.  Addressing this first, in my opinion the meaning of reasonable restrictions will be the most influential and most contested (in and out of the courts) phrase in the entire ruling.  If we look to other uses of this concept by the Supreme Court, this ruling is on par with so many 1^st Amendment rulings.  The Court has ruled that speech, especially speech that is political in nature, is protected under the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution.  It is, however, subject to some reasonable restrictions, such as: Libel or slander, these are both separate legal terms, but for my purposes, they both mean to bring someone’s character falsely into question.  Purposely lying about something someone did or said to demean their character or person is not protected by the 1^st Amendment.

 

Using the same principles as those applied to the 1^st Amend. It would be reasonable to say that while the ownership of firearms is protected, not all uses would be protected.  I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a restriction on the use, in defense of one’s property or self, of a firearm to require that there be a threat to said property and or life.  In other words, you should not have the right to shoot people simply for trespassing; however, trespassing in a mask at night would be just cause for shooting.  Anybody who does not agree simply does not understand that most people who trespass at night in disguise mean you harm, and even if they don’t they are willfully breaking the law and disregarding your rights to property and to be secure within that property.  As Thomas Paine said, “arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

 

Many people have said that this ruling has no effect on State, County, City and Local Governments and does not restrict their ability to do anything they want in terms of gun control.  I sharply disagree in principle even if reality does not follow suit.  The 2^nd Amendment is part of a Federal document and in this ruling, the right to the personal ownership of firearms was found to be protected in Federal Jurisdiction.  Thanks to the 10^th Amendment, things that are not regulated by the Federal Government are left to the States to regulate.  In this case this is a good thing, because now we not only have the 2^nd Amendment, we have a modern Court upholding that right and the maintenance of that right at the Federal level so the States cannot regulate the right to the point that it violates the standard of the Federal level.  In other words, this is why the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) had the confidence to file suit in San Francisco, Chicago and 3 suburbs of Chicago.

 

This is going longer than I thought it would so I will close with this last paragraph:  I think that any freedom loving individual, whether gun loving or not, should be rejoicing in this decision as freedom won the day.  Freedom won out over tyranny, oppression and the sophistry of the freedom hating gun control movement.  I call them “freedom hating” because they seek to destroy the freedom of one person in order to shelter the feelings and emotions of another.  They do no good in this pursuit, and neither will their effort be successful in anything other than increasing the very thing they claim to seek to end… violent crime.  The choice is ever present to respect, if not agree with, someone else’s right to practice something in which you choose not to participate.  There are countless examples of this in our society and yet when it comes to guns, the side that wishes to preserve life and liberty the most is attacked at hateful and many times uneducated simpletons.  I challenge you with this fellow freedom lovers, use this decision to light the fire of a good conversation with friends and neighbors about our freedoms and why you believe they are so important, but do so in a way that they can find no fault in you, even if they find fault in your argument.  Plant a seed of reason, water it delicately and watch it grow.  Thank you and good day.

 

-Common Sense Guy (Matt)

 

On Freedoms and Responsibility

In this day we do not have the luxury of allowing another to stand for us. We must protect our freedoms now, while we still have them, lest we find the history books remarking on what a novel concept the saying at Gettysburg of Abraham Lincoln was: “and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” If we do not protect and hold dear the freedom which we should cherish above all else; the freedom that our ancestors fought for and that our Sons and Brothers and Husbands (and wives) fight and die for today, then we shall read that saying in the future as: and that this government of the rulers, by the rulers and for the rulers over men’s souls, shall not perish from the earth. My hope is that we would use common sense in viewing the world, from everyday minutia to the elections of our leaders. That we would begin to love this country once again and cherish the opportunity that freedom has afforded us all. Whether we began life wealthy in the suburbs or poor in the city, we all have the freedom to, and I would dare say the obligation, pursue the greatness that lies within… Whatever that may be.

I think it is a shame that we do not esteem the janitor who is faithful to his family and who goes to work every day, an honest man. We do not hold high the single mother who works two jobs to provide food and shelter for her children (not only do we not hold her high, but we shun and ridicule her). Who is there to provide the help that she needs, to give her children guidance and show them that the world can be a beautiful place, and loving, not only wicked and cruel. We send these people to the government lines because that is the easiest thing to do. Don’t seek to deceive yourself, it is much easier to pay an extra one or two percent in taxes and hope that the government program for the under-privileged, one of the thousands that are in existence currently, will provide the guidance that the children in the “inner cities” need. It’s far more difficult to volunteer for the Big Brother or Sister programs and give your life to that same child to make them a better person. It’s much more difficult to give up your plasma screen television and instead donate that money to one of the hundreds of private organizations that do a better, more efficient job of reaching those who need help and effecting change in the lives of those who could easily be led down a path of unrighteousness without that help.

We fret over inner city violence, but common sense tells us that this violence is simple to stop… wait a second, before you jump all over me… I didn’t say easy, I said simple. The first step to stopping the violence is to cut off its blood flow (pardon the language). By that I mean that gang violence, or general thuggery tends to be the cause of the most violence in any “inner city”, and it is simple to stop gang violence (I didn’t say easy, I said simple)… you get rid of it’s lifeblood: the members. You care about the kids in the neighborhood, you show them love, give them things to do and make being in a gang uncool. You arrest and convict the ones on the streets with the harshest penalties possible for their crimes instead of letting them go (maybe even make being a member of a gang illegal – our Constitution provides no right of people to associate for the purposes of committing crimes, we only have the guarantee to peaceably assemble). You arm the law abiding citizenry in and around the city so that the criminals no longer have free reign. I’m not saying that violence, or even gangs, would ever completely go away, but we can drastically reduce their impact on our society if we act as responsible and caring citizens.

I want to share with you something that will boggle your mind and will display how backwards our thinking has become these days (some might say we’re nonsensical). Gun control is a hot issue, and rightly so, anytime the government tries to take away rights, people will fight and if they don’t then they deserve to lose them. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has its state scorecard posted, and according to them the second most dangerous state in the union should be Kentucky, because their gun laws are so relaxed, and yet they are the 10th SAFEST state in the union, which means that, contrary to what the folks at the Brady Campaign think, the availability of guns does not necessarily make a place more dangerous. Kentucky should have massacres every weekend, bank robberies every week and shout outs at every accident scene, but they don’t. Conversely, California is ranked number 1 on the Brady scorecard which means that California should be a veritable utopia, with virtually no crime. Again, not the case. California, while not ranked most violent is the 10th most violent state in the union with only 9 states more violent than it. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is not some crackpot organization either, they are heavily involved in the political arena and are respected.

Do you see how we have blinded our eyes? Can you take a step back and look at how warped our view of the world is? Can you tell that we have chosen to abandon (some of us) our rights as free peoples to own firearms in order to feel better about violence. I say FEEL better because the gun control measures do nothing to stop crime, they only prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their rights. If a man was willing to commit murder in order to obtain money through theft, do you think he minds breaking a state law against purchasing guns without a background check or carrying that gun illegally? No. Especially not when people are rarely sent to prison (like they ought to be) for simply carrying an illegal firearm.

It is my hope that we can begin to see beyond our fears, look beyond our selfish needs and use common sense to effect change in our world, for the better.

-Matt signing off.