But We May Be Losing
Joseph Farah, [WordNetDaily.com], in his Feb. 18th, Between the Lines column, "Ohio sniper and disarmed populace", used the example of that year and half long attack on the public as an example of the inability of the police or the government to protect the individual citizen. He says:
"The case of the Ohio sniper is a perfect illustration of the dangers of disarming the public—and leaving crime-prevention and deterrence to the government."
We want to thank Mr. Farah for this excellent article. It is one more example of the very point we made in "The Right Way to Do the Wrong Thing."
We certainly agree when he says, "The only way for us to maintain order, to clean up the streets, to govern ourselves and to defeat this kind of terrorism, is to encourage law-abiding citizens to arm themselves," but we cannot agree when he says, "Yet I hear virtually no other voices even making this case."
We certainly understand why he said it. I'm sure we all have this experience whenever we speak the unpopular truth. It certainly seems, sometimes, we are lone voices in a world of the dumb. But, we assure Mr. Farah, we are not alone; there are many others making this very case, and the larger case as well, of which this one is only a part, that government is not the solution, and usually the cause of the problems.
Many are Speaking
In fact, there are so many making the case, it would be impossible to name them all. Certainly others, like 
Vin Suprynowicz, 
Clarie Wolfe, L. Neil Smith, John Ross, are shouting this message correctly, whatever we think of their positions on anything else.
In addition to all the individual voices, there are countless organizations dedicated almost exclusively to this issue, including all of the following:
—CCRKBA (Citizens Committee ... Right to Keep and Bear Arms)
—KABA (KeepAndBearArms.com)
—Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
—Gun Owners of America
—Guns Save Life (Illinois)
—JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
—KC3 (Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed)
—LARGO (Lawful and Responsible Gun Owners)
—Mothers Arms
—SCOPE (Shooters' Committee On Political Education—NY)
—SAF (Second Amendment Foundation)
—Second Amendment Sisters
—Seniors United Support 2nd Amendment
—Women Against Gun Control
—Women's Firearm Network
—Women to Arms
Even the police are adding their voices:
—LEAA (Law Enforcement Alliance of America)
—Paul Revere Network
And, many others as well.
Nobody is Listening
The problem is, no one is listening.
It is not that no one at all is listening. There are over 200 million firearms in this country of 281 million people, and 65 million of these people own the guns. They all listen, of course, but they are already convinced.
It is not like nothing is happening, either. In 1986 there were only 8 "shall issue" (concealed carry permit) states, today there are 35. Furthermore, the results are exactly what we would expect. The rate of violent crime has steadily declined over those same years. In 1973 that rate was 48.5 per thousand, today it is less than 23 per thousand.
But, despite this seeming progress in rolling back repressive gun control regulation, the careful observer, like Mr Farah, knows the real state of gun control is much more insidious. As municipal, county and state governments declare more and more, "gun-free zones," there is less and less geography left where one is free to exercise their right to bear arms, however many permits they have. What good will a permit to carry a gun be if there is no place carry one?
While the local governments continue to reduce the places where you may "legally" have a gun, the state and federal governments continue to redefine what kind of guns one may have, until, when they are all finished, the only kind of gun anyone will be able to have legally will be a single shot beebee gun they will be free to carry in their back yards on alternate Saturdays, so long as they do not live within city limits. But no one will be able to say America suppresses gun rights.
Louder Voices
While many voices, like Mr Farah's declare the truth about gun rights, the virtues of gun ownership, and the morality of gun use, they are being heard only by those who already understand these rights and virtues. Those who hate guns, or fear them, or just have no use for them, not only do not hear, but consider the very arguments we make proof we are probably nuts, or at least, unbalanced.
They do not hear us, because they hear the louder voices, voices of "authority," like our liberal educators, sociology professors, and psychologists. They hear the voices of power, like the liberal politicians or collectivist organizations like environmentalists, animal rights groups, and teacher's unions. They hear the loudest voices of all, the government and its agencies.
While the links above include two organizations of police who advocate private gun ownership and use, they are comprised of individual policemen and they are the exception. Every police department discourages the private citizen from owning and using guns, especially to protect themselves from crime.
Even when giving advice to those who choose to own guns, the message of the police is the same message as all other anti-gun spokesmen, a message of fear such as this advice from the East Orange Police Department (NJ)
"Think long and hard about having weapons, especially firearms, in your home. Studies show that a firearm in the home is more than forty times as likely to hurt or kill a family member as to stop a crime."
What studies could show that? How does one measure what does happen (a family member being hurt or killed) against crimes that don't happen? How do they know how many might have occurred if there were not any firearms in the home? And how many of those incidents where a family member was hurt or killed by a firearm were the prevention of a crime? The sole purpose of that statement was to make people afraid to have a gun in the home.
"Look at other ways to protect yourself and your home. Invest in top-grade locks, jamming devices for doors and windows, a dog, or an alarm system, etc. etc. ..."
Thus begins the discouragement.
"If you do choose to own firearms - handguns, rifles, or shotguns - make sure they are safely stored. That means unloaded, trigger-locked, and in a locked gun case or pistol box, with ammunition separately locked. Store keys out of reach of children, away from weapons and ammunition. Check frequently to make sure this storage remains secure."
In other words, make the gun useless in any possible emergency. If the thing is going to be locked up and it takes a month to find everything (the ammunition, the keys, etc.) to use them, what good are they?
"Obtain training from a certified instructor in firearms safety for everyone in the home. Make sure it's kept current."
So before we can have and use a gun we have to spend hours and money on "certified" instructors for everyone in the family, continually. Is that discouraging? Of course. Is that absurd? You bet!
"Teach your children what to do if they find a firearm or something that might be a weapon - Stop, Don't Touch, Get Away, and Tell a Trusted Adult."
If we are talking about a bomb or poisonous snake, "stop, don't touch, get away," would be appropriate, but if these children have received, "certified training," they should certainly know how to handle a weapon or firearm safely, and if they would not, what good is the training?
The discouragement is obviously working.
While approximately one in four people in this country are known to own one or more guns, the percentage of gun owners who actually use guns, or even think about them is much smaller. Some of them do not even want them and gladly give them up at the first opportunity, such as during any of the growing number of gun turn-in and firearms amnesty programs various police departments around the country are promoting.
Others would not even consider owning a firearm. What do they need one for? That is what the police are for. Besides, they are dangerous and too much trouble.
Anti-gun Terrorism
The loud voices of the anti-gun movement have only one means of putting over their agenda—fear. The disarming of Americans cannot be accomplished by any other means.
The disarming of Americans cannot be based on moral grounds because the right to bear arms is a moral right. It is not a right because it is guaranteed in the second amendment, it is guaranteed in the second amendment because it is an extension of the right to life and liberty, both of which can only be taken away by force which every individual therefore has a right to defend themselves against. The right to bear arms means the right to use any means to defend one's life. The right to life cannot be defended without defending the means to preserving and protecting that life, including arms.
The disarming of Americans cannot be defended on utilitarian grounds either. While the anti-gun movement attempts to make every incident and every statistic evidence of the evils and dangers of guns, every honest statistical evaluation of guns proves conclusively, all citizens are safer the more guns there are, and fewer lives are lost to violence and crime.
The anti-gun movement to disarm Americans therefore resorts to the only method available to them, psychological terrorism. Terrorism is a method by which political objectives are accomplished. Where people cannot be influenced by offering them something of value and benefit to themselves, or cannot be convinced by irrefutable logic and argument, terrorism works to influence people by keeping them in abject fear and mind numbing terror until they will finally agree to anything or simply give up.
We are well aware of their methods and the examples of their continuous propaganda campaign to convince everyone that guns are the root of all evil. But be warned, while it seems their program, at least on some fronts, is losing ground, they have a strategy that is working beyond even their wildest dreams. It may be too late for them to convince the adults who have seen to much of this world to be taken in by their deceitful intimidation, but their real target is not this generation, it is the next. And they are winning.
Zero Tolerance Means Total Terror
Have you never wondered what the intent of the bizarre almost surreal events surrounding the so-called zero-tolerance policies of the public schools are? What could possibly be the purpose of policies resulting in actions so contrary to common sense and normality?
The ultimate purpose, of course, is to produce a generation that is entirely controllable by the state. One feature of that generation will be a chronic terror of guns, or any other kind of weapons. That generation will be so terrified of guns, they will not only allow themselves to be disarmed, they will beg to be.
This will be accomplished by convincing the current generation of school children that guns are so evil, so harmful, and so dangerous, that one should not even think about them. If you do not believe that, consider these examples of everyday occurrences in the government schools.
Phyllis Schlafly supplies these examples in her article, "Zero tolerance or zero common sense?"
"A first-grader at Struthers Elementary School in Youngstown, Ohio, was suspended for 10 days for taking home a plastic knife from the school cafeteria in his book bag. The 6-year-old wasn't threatening anyone; he just wanted to show his mother he had learned how to spread butter on his bread."
And this:
"At LaSalle Middle School in Greeley, Colo., three 13-year-old boys were given one-year suspensions because one of the students brought to school a key chain with a 2 1/2-inch laser pointer. The school called it a "firearm facsimile" and sent one of the boys, a good student who had never before been in trouble, to an alternative program where he is taking classes with young criminals and juvenile delinquents in "anger management," "conflict resolution" and gangs."
And this:
"Four kindergartners at Wilson Elementary School in Sayreville, N.J., were suspended for three days for playing a make-believe game of cops and robbers during recess, using their fingers as guns."
And this:
"An 8-year-old at South Elementary school in Jonesboro, Ark., was punished with detention for pointing a chicken strip at another student in the cafeteria while saying 'pow, pow, pow.'"
And more in Phyllis' article.
Wendy McElroy provides these examples in her article, "Zero Patience for Zero Tolerance" decrying the lunacy of "zero tolerance." She describe stories appearing in the medias, "of young children being suspended or treated like felons for playing with water pistols, paper guns or even for pointing their fingers at each other and saying "bang."
And this:
"In Madison, Wis., Chris Schmidt, a sixth-grader with a spotless record, faced a year's suspension because he brought a kitchen knife to school for a science project."
And These:
"And so, an 11-year-old is taken away in handcuffs for drawing a picture of a gun; an 8-year-old faces expulsion for a keychain that contained a cheap nail clipper; a fifth-grader is suspended for drawing the World Trade Center being hit by an airplane.
And even more in Wendy's article.
There are these two stories from WordNetDaily"BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS Boys suspended for tiny G.I. Joe guns, District's zero-tolerance policy bars inch-long plastic toy," and BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS 4th-grader suspended for gun shell in pocket by Joe Kovacs.
There is no end to such examples, because, if it is not happening in any school, it is the exception. There is only one purpose for this nonsense, to make children not only afraid of guns, but terrified to even think about them.
Have They Won?
Anyone ought to be able to sell any kind of gun they choose, anywhere they want. Anyone who chooses to, young, old, male, female, black, white, or green, or any shade between, ought to be able to walk into any store selling guns, pick one out, purchase it with the appropriate ammunition, load it, put in their pocket and walk out, no questions asked.
To the extent that idea frightens you, the anti-gun terrorists have won.