Ammunition Accountability Act

From Charleston Voice

Well the Liberal Gun Grabbers are at it again. Now they want to fingerprint your bullets. They will charge you more. They will make it a crime to possess bullets that do not bear a serial number. Your name and designated serial number ammo will be stored in a sweet ol' database, of course. Tricky bastards are running this game at the state level, trying to fly under the radar and avoid national outrage. Probably there is legislation pending in your state right now.The 2008 Legislative session has begun, and the Ammunition Accountability Act is being introduced across the country. Below is a summary of legislation that has been introduced throughout the United States. To view the bills' status click on the links to the individual bills. Sample Legislation:

The Ammunition Accountability Act-Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

I am amazed but not surprised. Contrary to all the debates carried on for years that our gun rights would be stripped Janet Reno style in midnight raids (providing us the opportunity to shoot some of the criminals in the door jam, on the stairs and just outside the bedroom before they kill us) it is all going down by degrees- "sneaky-like". Notice if you will that a vast majority of the states considering this are southern states.....We have lost our minds and our way.

Stumble It!

This is the Way the World Ends - Part I

With Valkyrie now in theaters the History Channel predictably aired a special feature on the historical events surrounding the story. One statement at the beginning of the show troubled me especially, just as it has every time I have ever heard it stated.

To paraphrase: "The German people did not generally support Hitler or the Nazi's and really had no choice but to go along with what occurred...they were innocent".

I disagree with this for many reasons. My views might have been in vogue 60 years ago but no more - everyone is a victim it seems, so too the German people.

Yes there were resistance movements - my favorite is that of the White Rose (die Weiße Rose). Much is now made of the resistance from the officers in the Army. As I discussed in my post When Is Disobediance a Moral Imperative General Ludwig Beck is perhaps the only senior officer that might really be considered to have actually resisted. Many of the other generals may have considered the Nazi's and Hitler dangerous but they still commanded their corps, divisions, air wings and armies in following Nazi orders. In reality the only time that senior officers seriously considered removing Hitler was after it became obvious that he was going to lose the war for Germany.

I do not believe the officers of the German army should receive any sort of pass - they did not resign en masse and more importantly they did not refuse to carry out Nazi orders. If all the senior officers had simply said "no" the Army would not have moved at all in 1939. A leader that nobody will follow is just taking a walk - they could have made Hitler invalid.

Of the numerous lieutenants, captains, majors and colonels that participated in various plots to kill Hitler we should remember and reflect - however, their actions and bravery does not exonerate the German officer corps as a whole.

What of the German people - is it as the History Channel and so many others have tried to portray over the years? Do they get a pass a mere victims?

We can say that Hitler was pretty clear in his ideology, writing it down and publishing in in 720 pages in 1925. Anyone that has attempted to navigate Mein Kampf has no doubt that Hitler did not hide his goals and objectives. The German people could have known if they looked.

It was the German people in 1928 acquiesced to the Law on Firearms and Ammunition under the Weimar Republic. This law was geared toward the Nazis and the Communist. Of course the Nazis were much better armed than the Communist by 1928 and neither group gave up any weapons - only the ordinary citizen complied with the law. With everyone disarmed SA was indeed a pretty scary force on the street.

So here we have the first crime of the German people. In the parlance of the modern American gun-rights movement the Germans were all prags (pragmatist), willing to give up their individual gun rights for some notion of a greater good or simply because the government said they should. After all they were allowed to keep that antique hunting rifle so they still had gun rights, what is the big deal.

The second crime of the German people is obviously their stupidity at the ballot box. In 1930 the Nazi's ran a media and entertainment campaign par with any modern US presidential campaign - all show with the substance below the surface. The Germans elected the Nazi's, and this must never be forgotten. They voted for change, they voted on emotion and for showmanship. (Is our election process any different?) The German people, during difficult times, gave the keys to the kingdom to Hitler, it is impossible to later claim innocence for his actions.

The third crime? They did not rise up and either passively or actively resist when it became apparent what Hitler intended to so with his power.

Is there modern relevance to all of this? Indeed there is - this is how our world ends, the world we grew up understanding. More in part II.

Stumble It!

Prepare to Defend Thyself

This will be my last post in this series. I imagine that from time to time I will revisit the subject but my original intent was merely to highlight the subject in what I hope was a reasonable and rational way.

When I left the topic last I promised to talk about guns, but before that there are, I believe, other elements that must be addressed.

First take a good look at you, by that I mean your physical condition. Good grief you say "now he is going to preach some physical fitness regime, I thought we established several posts ago that becoming Rambo was not required". And in that last assumption you are correct.

But...

Before we talk any further about preparing for anything we should talk seriously about preparing for life in its many and varied forms. Life is not all about the sedentary or semi-sedentary. Your chances of surviving anything from a car crash to a nuclear holocaust to old age are greatly improved with better physical condition. In honesty I suppose old age will get you eventually no matter your physical condition but of course the length and quality might be significantly improved.

Ask yourself - can you perform even moderate physical tasks over an extended duration (say a few days) without "throwing out your back", having a heart attack or just plain giving out?

If you were in a "scuffle" with someone else would you be out of breath in less than a minute? True story. I was in Europe and we were conducting a joint exercise with NATO forces and my unit billeted near a German unit. This was back when the Army Combatives was first coming out and some of our NCO's arranged to show the Germans what we knew. Several of our Soldiers and theirs went through drills in what amounted to matches. I recall thinking these guys could not be the descendants of the mighty Wehrmacht. These fellows seemed too fat and out of shape. The commander of the unit was 8 years my junior, I was only recently introduced to combatives, I had not practiced Judo since college and it had been just as long since I had wrestled in a match. I was induced by pride to accept the prodding of the NCO's to challenge this guy. Long story short, not 45 seconds into our little engagement this fellow was out of breath and holding his chest. This does not speak to my "tremendous martial skills" but rather to his physical conditioning. He was carted off by medics to be checked out.

The point is "scuffling" which is what most physical conflicts turn into is tasking on the cardiovascular system as it engages major muscles all over the body.

I use this only as an example of things a person ought to think of if they envision ever having to deal with the nastier side of human nature, particularly if that is brought on by panic and desperation of a world out of whack.

You can imagine for yourself the scenarios that might place you in a "scuffle" in the various situations we have previously envisioned in other posts. Ask yourself if you are even able to load your car in a timely manner, haul things to and from your house or board up windows at a pace much faster than a leisurely Saturday afternoon project.

Can you pull up your on body weight? Could you carry an injured person to safety? You see where I am going with all of this, so I will leave it alone with one last word. Get out and take care of this foundational requirement - put an image in your head of your loved one in danger and you huffing and puffing unable to help them. If you never have to use your increased stamina for such an endeavor you will still enjoy the associated benefits.

On the subject of "scuffling" I often see a lot of discussion on survival forums about taking up a martial art. Well here is a story for you - I spent several years practicing tae kwon do as a child/teenager, I wrestled in high school and college and took judo in college and boxed a little to boot. That is a lot of time invested. I learned more in the Marine Corps LINE combat system and the Army Combatives system than all others combined - think of that before going to the local training center and investing 3 nights a week for two years.

While in Korea, my wife and two children earned their first degree black belts in tae kwon do and as my wife bragged to me one day of her new kick butt skills I told her plainly "she had learned enough to get hurt". That was not to diminish her accomplishment but rather to point out a simple fact. Unless you have an enormous amount of time or are interested for other reason I see no point in taking up a martial art as an adult. Work on your fitness level and if you are ever forced to "scuffle" simply be aggressive about it.

So I promised my last post would be about guns and here it is.

Ignore all the talk about semi-auto pistols with high capacity magazines. Why? Less safe for most people, the springs in the magazines "get tired" over time and may not feed when you want it too, are more complicated to disassemble and clean, and for most models are hard to conceal. Do I own semi-auto pistols? Yes. Do they have a task and purpose? Yes. They should not be your first purchase or your only purchase.

This should -A double action revolver in calibers .38, .44, .45 or 356

I like the Tarus Judge MODEL 4510 .45/.410 because it chambers both a .45 for longer range and a .410 shotgun shell for close work (good for a nervous shooter in close quarters), and it is inexpensive.

The discussion could go on but I recommend the Tarus because it is a perfect pair with the shotgun I recommend--

The Moosburg HS .410 Home Defender. Comes with an integrated laser sight and a barrel designed for spread at 5-25m. The ballistics of the .410 are better that .44 at the intended range and the shot is less likely to penetrate secondary walls. All good for less than expert shooters.

I can already read the hate mail in my mind about the .410 cartridge but ballistic test have proven its effectiveness in close quarters and that is what we are talking about for new shooters. I do not want or suggest a new shooter attempt to "snipe" and get themselves killed. I would rather they hide and hope they are not found and shoot only if they are. The HS 410 serves that role well.

Folks seems to get too worked up about guns, what kind, how many etc. - the two above are a good start for anyone without guns - if you decide on different models I would definitely stick with a double action revolver and a pump action shotgun. Unless you plan to actually practice more than once a year I don't see the point in recommending a rifle (if I were to recommend one it would be the mini-14, it fires US military cartridges).

And there you have it - the discussion of guns could go on and on - if you want that go find a forum where folks argue endlessly about the merits of their stash versus someone else's.

I hope these posts have forced you to think a bit and perhaps even motivated you to act. I may add additional posts on related subjects in the future as I am about to buy a piece of property that I hope will become my "retirement/survival" retreat. The area around my little farm in SC has grown up too much in the years I have been away in the Army.

Stumble It!

To Arms!

Here is a parable taken from "House of Saddam", supposedly told to Saddam as a boy - but there is truth in it.


"A troublemaker walks through a village, drawing the ire of the people. Finally an old man confronts the outsider saying 'why are you here causing trouble'. To which the outsider replies, 'I am not causing trouble, I am unarmed, I do not have a gun or a knife or any other weapon'. The old man looks squarely at the outsider and states plainly, 'exactly, because you are unarmed you are inviting trouble where ever you go.'"


The moral of the story seems plain and true - the meek may inherit the Earth but the weak and defenseless will get walked on, trampled, robbed and perhaps killed.

Consider this from a recent article:

In the coming months, mental health experts expect a rise in theft, depression, drug use, anxiety and even violence as consumers confront a harsh new reality and must live within diminished means.

"People start seeing their economic situation change, and it stimulates a sort of survival panic," said Gaetano Vaccaro, deputy clinical director of Moonview Sanctuary, which treats patients for emotional and behavioral disorders. "When we are in a survival panic, we are prone to really extreme behaviors."

The America of today is not the America of 1929. There are significant elements within our society across all cultural, ethnic and racial lines that are immoral at their base. These people are probably incapable of behaving morally in difficult situations. The difference between now and 1929 is that there is so many more of them relative to the rest of the population. A 15% unemployment rate today could result in a social/crime/unrest situation far worse than the 25% of the Great Depression.

Should you own a gun? I cannot help but believe the answer is yes; if you are truly willing to use it to defend your life, your family and your property. There is no point in spending the money if you are too squeamish of the notion of using the thing.

There is a term that began to float around in the military after the invasion of Afghanistan and gained a lot of traction after Iraq. At first I disliked the term but eventually I came to terms with it, understood it, and accept it as part of the human condition. "Some people just need killing". In military parlance this refers to hardliners that refuse to put down their arms, back down or accept any part of the coalition program.

In considerations of defending your property, family or yourself this term has meaning as well. There are some people in the world that in the right circumstances, at the right moment will do you harm. I think we should accept that. The only thing preventing wholesale brutality by our growing immoral class is the trappings of order provided by society. Thus most of our would be violent criminals constrain their immorality to forms of criminality and immorality in the business world. As you can see I am not talking about the 850,000 gang members and other already violent criminals in the US at this point - I am talking about the middle-class guy that cheats at business, on his wife and on the golf course. It is that selfish type that will join the other criminals in hard times to threaten you and yours. Anyone with such a lack of morals and ethics in an ordered society will join the ranks of potential "people that need killing" when things go bad.

It is not an un-Christian view to think like this - God gave parents stewardship over children, a man responsibility to his wife and her to him. Exercising the right of self-defense is not contrary to Christian teachings.

As I said earlier I believe, based upon my observations that for most ordinary people living in hard situations the requirement to use a gun to defend yourself is probably at worst a once in a life time event. I believe that, certainly depending upon a persons location and luck that number may change for the individual. The point is, even if it happened just once - that one moment is life changing one way or the other - being prepared determines who has a bad day (you or the thug).

Of course you should be armed.

In the next post we will talk about weapon selection.

Stumble It!

Rifleman's Prayer

Oh Lord, I would live my life in freedom, peace and happiness, enjoying the simple pleasures of hearth and home. I would die an old, old man in my own bed,
preferably of sexual overexertion.

But if that is not to be, Lord, if monsters such as this should find their way to my little corner of the world on my watch, then help me to sweep those bastards from the ramparts, because doing that is good, and right, and just.

And if in this I should fall, let me be found atop a pile of brass,
behind the wall I made of their corpses. (ht Freeholder)

Ok either you get it or you are running away in the belief that I am a murderous, bloodthirsty sociopath. I get it. I see both the truth and the humor of this. - On other unrelated notes-

Today I returned to my native land after an absence of over two years. Much has changed. Apparently I need to brush up on my Spanish - the small Mexican enclave in the small town near my home has grown tremendously while I was away. Amazing that!

I was encouraged to hear Ron Paul advertisements on the radio - on my way to the gun shop. As I said I have not been able to purchase a new "toy" in two years. I treated myself to a Bulldog Pug .44 revolver and Winchester lever action 30-30. The wife was not please but after paying for her to bask in Hawaii for 6 days her protestations were semi-muted. It is all good!

An absence of two years is just enough time to measure and gauge the spread of "sprawl". I did not count but I noticed numerous instances of long time businesses that are now gone - replaced by cookie cutter shops, restaurants etc. A place loses its character when this happens.

When I was in a little town on the North Shore of Oahu last week I noticed little signs and bumper stickers stating "Keep the Country Country". Perhaps Mr. Wendell Berry's influence is greater than I imagined or maybe people everywhere realize the importance of maintaining their little piece of the world.

I plan to spend the next several days before heading out on the second phase of our move ( a cross country drive), hunting, sleeping (vacations are tiring) and trying to talk my fellow South Carolinians into supporting Ron Paul.

Stumble It!

Ron Paul's Position

Ok, so you may (or may not) ask - why do I support Dr. Ron Paul for President.

Weyrich claims in a recent article that Paul has "strange ideas" but never really clarifies this.

It is too bad some of the ideas he advocates are strange because many of the things he says makes sense.

Strange enough some people confuse Weyrich with an actual paleoconservative. - I think not.

What of these strange ideas?

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

This is true and something found on a campaign site- a rare occurance. You do not need to listen to Paul's speeches or read his words to really know where he stands - look at the man's voting record in Congress over the last 20 years. You will know that he really means what he says - find another politician out there that really can say that.

I know, I have said it before, one man and one election cannot restore the republic. However, enough people fully supporting a man that stands on the right principles (whether he wins or loses) is the absolute right step.

Ron Paul has stood firm on a strict interpretation of the Constitution the entire time he has worked in Congress - that is the number one reason I support him.

Surely that is not the strange idea mentioned above. What of his stance on the other hot-button issues.

American Sovereignty - 100% right, no NAU, NAFTA, UN or other foreign entanglements

"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."


Border Security and Immigration - 100% spot on target

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines; Enforce visa rules; No welfare for illegal aliens; End birthright citizenship; Pass true immigration reform"


Taxes and Debt - Amen

"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."


Health Freedom - he is the doctor

"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

Home Schooling - my children are home schooled thank you very much

"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation."

Privacy and Personal Liberty - who but a tyrant could disagree?

"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."


Property Rights - again only a tyrant could disagree

"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."


Social Security - fixing FDR's socialist nightmare

"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."

The Second Amendment - praise the lord and pass the ammunition

"I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."


War and Foreign Policy - 100% correct

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution....Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

Stumble It!

A Federal Court Got Something Right?

La Shawn Barber points us to this opinion of the DC Circuit Court reference the RIGHT of us ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms.

“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

It is amazing but it seems that in this opinion they did get it just right.

"From my cold dead hands!"

Stumble It!

Support Your Local Sheriff?

This from a mailing list entitled "The Charleston Voice" (I am not certain how I got on the list or who the writer is but I do enjoy the emails)

From a recent message:

"Fear the government that fears your guns...". Note the "culprit" had no prior police record. What a waste of precious law enforcement funds. Washington County taxpayers should work to cut the budget of Sheriff Tim Helder. State legislators should prohibit a federal agency, the BATF, from meddling in state affairs under the 10th Amendment. This was never a power delegated by the people of Arkansas to the federal government. Similar exigencies could await gold and silver "hoarders".

From the incident mentioned:

FAYETTEVILLE — A Fayetteville militia member was arrested Wednesday by teams of special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other federal and state agencies and local police in connection with illegal firearms

Problem number one, I see no justification in the Constitution for the Federal Government to maintain a police force (nor several of them as is the case).

“We assisted ATF and several other agencies in arresting Fincher. I don’t believe he has a criminal history with us. That’s all I can tell you,” Reynolds said.

Reynolds is the county sheriff - supposedly the highest ranking law man in the county if we are to trust tradition and common law but here we have yet another example of a county sheriff "dutifully" assisting the federal goons when they come knocking.

A machine gun that can fire 550 rounds a minute and assorted 9 mm Sten submachine guns are stored in the Washington County militia’s concrete and steel vault, according to information gathered from an interview conducted by The Morning News in March. Each weapon is stamped with the word “non-commercial” to prove the group holds the arms for militia purchases only and not for trade or sale.

Now before you say, "see they were breaking the law" consider again the words of Congressman Ron Paul that I discussed in a recent post:

The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

If we concede that law-abiding citizens - like Mr.Fincher (see the sheriff's statement above about the man's criminal history) cannot own modern-day muskets we are conceding the right of the people to force change on a government that cannot be persuaded with reason.

Fincher said in [a] March interview he believes Americans should proudly uphold the right to bear arms, stand up for land rights and not always accept the federal government as the supreme law of the land.

“What we’ve got to do today is hold our ground,” Fincher said in March.

For Mr. Fincher and the 13 other members of his group raided in their homes 8 November standing their ground was an expensive proposition - a sacrifice the rest of us should remember and honor.

Stumble It!

Guns and Liberty

The Honorable Ron Paul ( I so seldom use that honorific) writes this week about guns and gun control.

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.

The knee-jerk reaction to events such as school shootings is that weapons that dispense a lot of lead in a short period of time are probably too dangerous for "The People". This may be true; but if it is true then The People are worthy of neither the freedom nor liberty that guns guarantee. (A Subject for another discussion)

Risking offense to each and every one of my libertarian and paleoconservative friends that stress that change must come but it must come at the cost of no blood I offer this - history teaches such notions are naive and misplaced.

Now, slow down just a bit and hear what I am saying. I am not advocating an armed revolution nor am I saying such a thing is necessary. I wrote a few days ago that it is time that our intellectual ponderings about what is wrong and how things ought to be are all well and good but will ultimately accomplish nothing. We must become reactionaries to the cultural demise and ever increasing reliance on government to solve every problem. We must tame the beast before it devours us. This will not occur without a solid and dedicated commitment.

This commitment must be deeper than mere words and political actions. We must also realize that as Jefferson stated in his often repeated quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Do we believe we are so enlightened in this age that bloodshed is no longer required at times to effect change? How foolish, the government certainly does not ascribe to that viewpoint.

Do George Washington's words still not ring true? "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I think his view of government is still true; as a paleoconservative I accept government as a necessary evil - an evil that must be contained and restricted to the most minimal of roles and powers.

Revolution is not required today; we still have many other nonviolent means to bring about change. However, if we fail in this generation what options will our children be left with? Do we suppose that a failure on our part will result in a government that is more or less tyrannical? I presume that if we fail our children will yearn for the liberty of their fathers.

It is thus extremely important to retain the right to keep and bear arms; arms comparable in relative capability to the musket on the mantle in 1792. That musket was a military weapon, suitable for hunting man and beast. We cannot submit to the notion that our children be left with only single-shot "plinkers". The Second Amendment means a lot more than that.

Dr. Paul leaves us with this warning:

Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best-- and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms-- is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.

Stumble It!