This nation is not a democracy

 In a democracy the will of the majority prevails. What we have here is a Republic ( or well at least we use to ), wherein there are fundamental rights that are not subject to the whim of the majority. I think this can be best summed up in the term "tyranny of the majority", and it is the reason the founders of this country (as flawed as they were in some respects, as we all are) were quite clear about not having a democracy. In fact, these fundamental rights are not even granted to citizens by the government. Instead we are all sovereign, and "We the People" have granted the government some very limited powers, these are spelled out in our constitution. These fundamental rights are a function of us being rational beings.

Now, I am not a Republican, and I am not a Democrat. In fact I am not a conservative and I am not a liberal.  I consider myself to be strongly biased towards libertarian ideals.

Over the last month I have heard countless people (mostly media and politicians) question the "need" for someone to own a firearm like an AR-15. That is an invalid question that has no place in political discourse. As a responsible adult, with no criminal history, it is none of your business why I wish, or feel the need to have an AR-15, anymore than it is any of my business why you would need to vote for a particular candidate, drive a particular car, or put certain artwork on your wall. I am getting sick and tired of people telling me that I need to explain my need to exercise my rights.

The right of self defense, from tyrannical governments, criminal elements, or wild boars (for that matter) is a fundamental right. This is a right that I have due to the fact that I am a living being, with rational thought. Further, there seems to be a disconnect in who the constitution applies to. I primarily blame the schools for this, but we are all to blame really. I hear people say things like " 2A gives me the right to carry whatever firearm I like" This is false.

2A, along with the rest of the constitution does not apply to citizens. The Constitution applies to the government. 2A (and the other Rights as well) restricts the government from infringing upon rights. The right of self defense is not reliant on the constitution. That is the primary problem with the argument "It says the militia can bear arms". No, it forbids the government from restricting that right. Just like the 1A restricts congress (and with incorporation all government), from creating a national religion, or restricting the right of assembly, the exercise of speech. I personally can't stomach the certain Church organizations, however I am far more fearful of the repercussions of not allowing them their speech.

All rights come with responsibilities. This is implicit in a right. We have a right of free speech, but we are also responsible for what we say. We have a right to self defense, but we are also responsible for any harm we cause by using that right. If a bad guy comes into my home, and I take a defensive stance, but the round flies across the street and breaks my neighbors window, I am responsible for that damage, just as I would be responsible if the round hit my neighbor by accident.

Over the last 15 years or so, I have watched in horror as I see erosion's in many of our rights.

Free speech zones? Any public place in this country is a free speech zone. Stop and frisk laws? What ever happened to reasonable suspicion and probable cause? NSA collecting and data-basing all phone and internet traffic? I have seen DUI Checkpoints turn into License and insurance checkpoints. I have seen law enforcement break down the doors of law abiding citizens and shoot the owners and their pets, I have seen our prison population swell to numbers that even China cant match.

These abuses have been perpetrated on us not only by Democrats, but by all those in power. President Bush was horrible with regard to this, Obama has actually been worse. I am frankly disgusted with all of the politicians, not just the liberal ones.

The solution to Sandy Hook type events? Don't send the principal to the door with nothing but her hands to stop a determined attacker. Had that principal had a shotgun and blasted the attacker as he attempted to break in the locked door, the entire incident would probably not have even made the news. But instead, we have to hear how the principal threw her life away in the hopes of delaying the criminal so that the good guys with the guns arrived in time.

The deaths of those children are on the hands of the criminal, but the numbers are on the hands of those that made sure there was no way for anyone in that school to stop the attacker.

I fail to understand the logic of people who somehow think the act of writing words on paper (new laws) will somehow magically eliminate criminals from obtaining anything they want. If in fact laws stopped crime, there would never be a murder.

America needs to stop trying to blame the tools of the criminal and start addressing the threat of the criminal. The criminal who attacked Sandy Hook did so knowing that he would be the only person there shooting until the police arrived. He did not worry about anyone shooting back. Society provided him the perfect defenseless victims. Once the tables turned and the good guys with the guns showed up, the criminal took his own life. Why it is so hard to realize that the good guys with the guns need to be everywhere so that the bad guys with the guns don't get that free access?

But no, reality is not part of our thought process.We live in a  fantasy world, thinking that  guns will magically vanish.

Thomas Jefferson warned us that freedom requires eternal vigilance. Good people need to be ready to deal with the criminals. It wasn't that long ago where people took their own defense seriously. There are still places in this country where laws require people to bring their gun to church. Few do, but the purpose was to defend against attacks by Indians at the time. In other words, good guys defending against criminals. The criminal might be different, but the principle is the same.

I fail to see why anyone would be so opposed to the same kind of policy today. If a person clears the background check and accepts the responsibility associated with carry of a gun, why should anyone fear them? We cross the street in front of strangers piloting heavy guided missiles in the form of cars, trucks, buses, etc. Yet, we do not have an irrational fear that these people will suddenly use their vehicle to kill you. We use caution and watch for a threat, but generally we know that good people don't just kill others. But that same person simply having a gun in a holster suddenly creates a panic. Why?

As for the Assault Weapon ban, magazine capacity limits, and all the other BS being proposed, the response to that is to just look at the images of Sandy Hook. When the good guys showed up, what were they relying on to defend THEMSELVES? Assault Weapons with Large Capacity magazines. Obviously the experts know what to use when criminals threaten them.

Police have to follow the same exact rules as civilians when it comes to using deadly force. The only thing the police are allowed to do that a civilian can not is chase after a criminal that is no longer posing a threat. Police can not shoot a fleeing criminal. Police can not simply open fire in the hopes of mowing down a criminal. Every bullet the police shoot is carefully evaluated. And yet, they use the very tools that somehow are not suitable for the people the are called in to defend.

In one breath you want absolute bans on good people having the means to defend from criminals, and in the second, you are dialing 911 to call in the good guys with the Assault Weapons to come save you. How this could ever sound like logic is beyond me.

And before you start in on the "but the police are trained", go research how much firearm training and practice your local officers actually have. I know quite a few people who practice more in a week than most officers do in an entire year. Statistics show that civilian defenders hit the intended target significantly more often than police do. Budget cuts, ammunition costs, range time, etc. are all causing many departments to cut back to bare minimum training.

Good people use firearms to defend themselves hundreds of thousands of times every year. In most cases, the mere presence of the defensive gun is sufficient. When studies inquire of criminals what their biggest fear was, the answer is almost always "an armed victim". This is the side of the debate that is being ignored. These are the numbers and situations where the criminal is stopped.

A classic case occurred in Texas many years ago. A woman traveling alone stopped at a rest area to use the bathroom. When she emerged, she was confronted by a man intent on raping her, declaring he was about to "have some fun". The woman simply pulled her revolver out and the man ran off cursing "Bitches with guns". At that time, the woman was in violation of the Texas law by having that revolver. But you tell me, who was the criminal?

Liberal arguments only make the criminals stronger. Irrational fear, Illogical desires, and fantastical beliefs will not, have not, and are never going to make anyone safer.

Good guys with the power to stop criminals is the one and only true means to prevent events like Sandy Hook.

As for the criminals, enforcing the laws we have would be a good start. I hear people talk about the Columbine shootings and the names of the shooters are almost universally known. But I have yet to talk to anyone who remembers Robyn Anderson. She was the young woman who supplied the shooters with 3 of their 4 guns. In doing so, she violated as many as 22 laws. Yet, not only has she never spent a day behind bars, she has never even been arrested. Why?

If we are really serious about stopping criminals, why does the Obama Administration allow guns to go to the Drug Cartels and then declare Executive Privilege when Congress asks for the documents? Why do we fail to enforce our current laws, but demand new ones? Why is it logical to punish the law abiding, but not focus on the actual problems? 

You may agree or disagree with me, that's fine, But you have no right to tell me what to do with my body , who I may marry, or what I require to use to protect myself and my family from threats . Only when I am violating your rights do you have any say in my actions, and that does not mean that because someone else violated your rights that you get to violate mine.

Have a nice weekend and try and make it to your State Capital and let your voice and presents be known.

I wish you well.