It’s true that Barack Obama loves guns. But only for the privileged politician and bureaucrat classes. You see, without guns, the bureaucrats would get a lot less cooperation fighting all the wars they are engaged in. Gun control is not about protecting us from each other. Gun control is about protecting bureaucrats from their subjects.

You don’t have to go back that far to find Obama taking an extreme stance against gun rights. In 2004, while running for the U.S. Senate, he promised to bar citizens nationwide from receiving concealed-carry permits. The Chicago Tribune reported then that Obama “backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.” Obama explained his plan to pre-empt state concealed-carry laws with a federal bill: “National legislation,” Obama said at the time, “will prevent other states’ flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.”

For a man who doesn’t know me to arrogantly make assumptions about my level of competence and tell me I am not allowed to defend myself is morally wrong. Government has lots of guns. Why can’t I have guns?

The assumption is that government is more responsible with guns than regular people. Prove it. How many individuals have declared war on a country and killed millions of its citizens? Take away every gun regulation. The equation would remain exactly the same. People would still go crazy from time to time without thousands of gun regulations. Some of them would still get access to guns. If all the guns were gone, they would use a car, or poison your food and water, or devise some other method. The mentality a society teaches its citizens is much more important than the rules it writes down in books.

Maybe you could care less about guns. Maybe your pet issue is social injustice. Fine. Let’s talk about that.

The basic problem with government is that it doesn’t actually solve problems. It manages them.

Name one of the social injustices that government has declared war and won. War on Poverty? Nope. We’re nowhere near winning that one. War on Drugs? Nope. Drug use is up. Doesn’t matter if you look at illegal substances or prescription abuse. Not winning. That particular boondoggle isn’t going away anytime soon. War on Terror? The term itself is asinine. The program isn’t designed to stop terror. It’s designed to make us all very afraid. Of real and imagined boogeymen, some of whom wear government issued uniforms and lord it over you at the airport, border crossings and increasingly, on your city streets. We’re not winning the War on Terror and we never will because you cannot wage war on something as broad as “terror” - the whole idea is idiotic.

Finally, the most important war the government is fighting. I see the bureaucrats making a great deal of progress in that particular campaign. The War on Intelligence is moving right along. No, they aren’t winning per se. But the federal government has certainly managed to dumb us down since it took over educating us in 1979. No Child Left Behind has to be one of the most intelligence damning pieces of legislation ever written. The Idiocracy is coming. We’re 23rd in math and 16th in science. Under the management of FedGov, those numbers are sure to get bigger.

Let’s get back to our next President Mr. Obama and his worldview for a moment.

He has promised to pick guardians of the Constitution who do not respect gun rights and believe that a comprehensive ban on gun ownership is consistent with the second amendment.

Senator Obama has a history of projecting a misleading moderation in his politics — and he does it very smoothly. According to his biographer, David Mendell, one of Senator Barack Obama’s greatest political virtues is “his ingenious lack of specificity. . . . While talking or writing about a deeply controversial subject, he considers all points of view before cautiously giving his own often risk-averse assessment, an opinion that often appears so universal that people of various viewpoints would consider it their own.”

It is my belief that Barack Obama has no interest in solving my problems. That’s good because I don’t want him to solve my problems either. The tricky part is that I don’t even want him to manage my problems. They are my problems, and I’ll deal with them.

Mr. Obama when you become President all I want you to do is leave me alone to live my life. I have the audacity to hope you’ll end the four unwinnable wars your predecessors have been managing so poorly in direct violation of the Constitution they swore to uphold. Let the states handle social issues. Let me handle my business. You worry about protecting our borders and getting us out of all those ill advised foreign police duties we’ve assigned ourselves over the last 60 years or so. I’ll worry about running my own life, saving for retirement, choosing which medicine and medical treatment is best for me, picking what kind of gun I want to keep for personal defense, educating my kids and living as long and as healthy as I can. I don’t need help managing any of that stuff, please and thanks. The more rules you try to make me follow in my day to day routine the less likely it is I’ll cooperate with you. Hint: the same rule of thumb applies to people in other countries. Most people who didn’t ask to be managed don’t appreciate it when you decide they need managing.

I appreciate your taking a moment to consider this American’s viewpoint.

As far as I’m concerned, a private employer can make any rules it wants to. I will follow the ones that make sense, and maybe even follow the ones that don’t make sense if I want the job. And I’ll violate the ones that represent a threat to my own well being. I’m not likely to follow any rules or laws that limit my ability to defend myself to my satisfaction. I guess it is a good thing I don’t work for Disney.

”Disney’s the safest place on Earth. It’s awesome,” said Fiore, of St. Cloud. “But late at night in the parking lot, and driving the 35 miles to and from home, I don’t always feel safe armed with just a cellphone.”

But theme-park guests might not feel safe knowing that some of the 62,000 Disney employees have weapons in their cars, said company spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez. She said that having armed people on the property violates the company’s zero-tolerance policy concerning workplace violence. Disney has its own security force as well as 50 Orange County Sheriff’s Office employees.

It’s great that Disney has its own security force, but they can take that zero tolerance policy and shove it as far as I am concerned. I’ll use violence to protect myself when and where I deem appropriate. I don’t have any interest in the idea that I should be punished for the indiscretions of others, and I will ignore laws that may endanger my own well being. So should you.

Many people who come across this blog entry may think to themselves that I am paranoid. I prefer to think of myself as prepared. I may one day need a first aid kit. I may one day need a survival blanket. I may one day need a fire extinguisher. And one day, I may need a gun. I keep all of them handy. So should you. That is not paranoia. It’s prudent. Ask anyone who has ever had to defend his or her own life in an emergency.

I value my job, but I value my life more. I may grudgingly pee in a cup for you, but I’m not giving up my survival toolkit. And you shouldn’t ask me to. It is insulting that you think so little of my rationality, my decision making ability and my aim. How can an employee be trusted to operate a ride with hundreds of people on it - their lives are in that employee’s hands. Yet give that same employee a gun and suddenly everyone is in a panic, running around screaming about zero tolerance. This is foolishness.

I read a fascinating article this morning that directly correlates gun control in an area with the crime rate. The two are statistically inverse. In other words, the more gun control a place has the more crime it has.

For many years, the Brady Campaign released an annual “report card,” grading each state on its level of “sensible” gun laws. States with higher grades (e.g. “A”) were obviously more “sensible,” according to Brady; states rated “F” were apparently considered “non-sensible.”[3]

The first interesting detail in the 2001 version of this report card is that Washington, D.C. is missing. This is also true for Brady’s 2002-2004 reports.[4] This is a curious omission because the Brady Campaign is on record as supporting the D.C. ban on functioning firearms––Helmke said “we [Brady Campaign] disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling”[5]––and it seems reasonable that their report card would be an excellent opportunity to highlight D.C.’s success, since surely a total firearms ban rates an “A.”

Also in 2001, the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics, as part of their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), asked respondents from all over the country the following question: “Are any firearms now kept in or around your home? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, car, truck, or other motor vehicle.”[6]

Results from this survey were collated with Brady’s 2001 grades. After sorting by gun ownership levels, states were divided roughly into quartiles: under 30% gun ownership rates (12 states); 30-40% (14 states); 40-50% (15 states); and over 50% ownership rates (10 states). There is a clear correlation between low levels of gun ownership and higher Brady grades: Only the first quartile of states, incidentally with the lowest levels of gun ownership (average 16.5%), were rated well by Brady, averaging a grade of B+. Quartiles 2-4 had average grades of D+, D+, and D-, respectively. This indicates that Brady’s definition of “sensible” gun laws equates with laws which restrict or prohibit gun ownership.

Unfortunately for Brady, there is another correlation which demands attention. Each year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation releases their annual Uniform Crime Report, reporting on major violent and property crimes committed around the country. Included in their crime tabulations is a Table 4, which compares the current year’s crime rates to the previous year’s. This enables the FBI to report on updated data for the previous year’s, reflecting corrections and late entries from participating law enforcement agencies from across the country. As a result, Table 4 in the 2002 Uniform Crime Report has more accurate crime data for the year 2001.[7]

Brady’s favored group––with the B+ average grade––had a average violent crime rate of 610.0 in 2001.
Violent crime levels dropped sharply in quartiles 2-4: 424.5, 410.7, and 319.6, respectively.[8]

I don’t need all these statistics to know that having access to guns is my right as an American, but it does help justify my continued fight for more responsible gun ownership and less panic inspired restrictions on law abiding members of society.

Frankly, when guns become illegal I’ll become an outlaw. In the meantime, I’ll continue trying to raise awareness about facts instead of fiction. Fact: responsible gun owners are a threat to no one but criminals. Fiction: the more you control access to guns, the less crime there is. The exact opposite is true.

Go read Nemerov.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd Amendment, we should expect to see a flurry of gun rights activism all over the country. We should also expect to see desperate struggles for bureaucrats to retain their power of intimidation over the law abiding segment of the population. Bear in mind, once again, that it is this officious attitude that has resulted in a higher per capita incarceration rate than any other developed country.

Two things to keep in mind during these coming struggles - 1) The struggles will NOT affect criminals. What is being decided is whether law and order respecting citizens will be able to enjoy the right guaranteed by the Constitution. Criminals already ignore municipal, state and federal gun restrictions on a routine basis. 2) Despite the shrill harping you’ll hear from your bureaucrats nationwide, no one will be less safe if guns are permitted to LAW ABIDING citizens in places like Chicago, San Francisco and Atlanta’s Hartsfield Jackson International Airport. Those places will in fact, become safer. The more armed law abiding types you have roaming around, the safer you are. That is a safe rule of thumb to follow. This is a culture war of authoritarians against individualists.

Having said that, I would encourage you to take a moment to read how Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin and her posse are clearly stating that they are above the law.

If someone could get 50 concealed carry permit holders together, organize a legal defense for them, and have them show up at the airport with their weapons I would participate. I’d love to see the city of Atlanta try and win that battle in the Georgia court system - it is clearly unlawful for the city to try and declare any “gun free zones” that contradict state law. I am more interested in re-asserting my second amendment rights and expanding the scope of where I can carry without being harrased by petty bureaucrats than anything. I wouldn’t cry if Shirley Franklin lost sleep over not being able to tell me what to do either. I already drive to the airport with my gun fairly frequently - I’m not a threat to anyone non-violent on the premises. Someone needs to stand up before we’re all constantly bowing. If gun owners who have already been vetted by the state to carry showed up en masse and peacefully dared the police to arrest them, it would force the city to abide by the law. Maybe georgiacarry.org can get an organized protest together.

Update: Georgia Carry has filed a lawsuit against the City of Atlanta.

An attorney for Georgia Carry showed up at a press conference by Franklin and DeCosta to hand them a copy of the suit. DeCosta took it, while Franklin walked away.

Franklin and DeCosta had called the press conference to say they will stick with their no-guns policy for parts of the airport outside federal jurisdiction, which include parking lots and main lobby and ticketing areas. Franklin said she will lobby Congress to authorize gun bans in any public facilities that get federal funds.

I’d love it if someone could clarify for me who put Ben DeCosta in charge of all the airports in Georgia? I thought he was just Shirley Franklin’s personal lapdog and socialist associate.

The most important decision the Supreme Court has made in my 37-years has been handed down.

I’d like to tell all the anti-gunners to suck it right about now, but that would be petty. Instead, I’ll just say that I hope Michael Bloomberg drops dead from shock.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The Heller decision is significant, but the battle against the unreasoning fear and ignorance about firearms being purposely spread through our society is just part of a much larger war against self-reliant individuals that is far from over. Eternal vigilance is necessary. The freedom lovers and the doers and those who care not for the mediocrity of the state must continue to ignore the bad laws when necessary and to campaign against the purveyors of collectivist ignorance.

This is one tiny victory in a war that we’ve been losing badly for decades. I’ll be standing by for a full analysis, but the small victory today warms my heart. It’s been pretty cold, politically speaking, for people like me who believe that idiots and not guns are the problem.