Monthly Archives: December 2012

My Latest Article at American Thinker: The Unintended Consequences of Gun Control

My latest article at American Thinker starts like this:

In 1996, John Ross penned what has become a classic story of what might happen when the federal government oversteps its bounds and clamps down too hard on guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans.  So chilling is the story, so graphic in its descriptions of how some Americans might fight back, that Mr. Ross and his wife were hounded and intimidated by federal authorities.

Yet the title of his novel speaks loudly about what the gun-grabbers can expect when they legislate from emotion rather than fact.  There, in Unintended Consequences, many of them lost their fictional lives.  Here, in real-life America, we have magnets that draw armed lunatics into schools, malls, and other venues where guns are banned.

So we need more gun laws!  We need to reinstitute the assault weapons ban!

For more see: The Unintended Consequences of Gun Control.

Hillsdale College – Imprimis

This is a great piece. Those of you who have read my novel know that the concept express here is my central thesis.

This is the President of Hillsdale College:

One obvious theme to strike is that people didn’t vote for, and don’t support, higher taxes and bigger government. But conservative statesmen have to get better. Calvin Coolidge once said that great statesmen are “ambassadors of providence, sent to reveal to us our unknown selves.” What that means is that great statesmen are not going to be around very often. I’d say that the standard of conservative statesmanship today is improving, but too few prominent conservatives are skillful at explaining the problem of the modern bureaucratic state. This form of government proceeds by rules, and rules upon rules, and compliance with those rules becomes a key activity of the entire nation. That results in bureaucracy, and in the inefficiencies of bureaucracy. Constitutional government, on the other hand, proceeds by clearly stated laws.

Not grasping this is an important failure of conservative statesmen today. During the first presidential debate I stood up and slapped my leg, and my wife said to sit down and be quiet, when Mitt Romney said that business and prosperity require regulation. What he should have said instead was that of course we require laws in order to be productive and to live safely, but that laws are different than regulations. Laws are passed by elected (and thus accountable) representatives, they cover everybody equally, and we can all participate in their enforcement because they are easy to understand. Not one of those three things is true of the regulations imposed by independent boards such as those established under Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Romney was not able to make that distinction, and yet that distinction is at the heart of the choice Americans must make about how they will be governed.

via Hillsdale College – Imprimis.

Robert Bork, former Supreme Court nominee, dies

Just imagine if Bork had been nominated… We’d in short order be looking at a 5-4 Supreme Court that believes the Second Amendment DOES NOT apply to individuals.

Robert Bork, the former federal judge whose Reagan-era nomination to the Supreme Court touched off one of the roughest confirmation battles in modern U.S. history, has died.

via Robert Bork, former Supreme Court nominee, dies | Fox News.

EDITORIAL: EPA regulates water – Washington Times

Those of you who have read my novel know that I’ve detailed how the executive branch of the federal government has exceeded it’s constitutional confines by writing and enforcing substantive law. We would never allow the police to write their own criminal code. Why do we allow regulatory agencies to write the law they get to enforce?

It’s the definition of tyranny.

So, here is simply the latest example of regulatory mischief.

The environmentalist movement has gone off the deep end. It’s bad enough that the courts have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to declare carbon dioxide, one of the essential components of life on this planet, to be a pollutant. Now the same bureaucratic zealots are going after water itself.

On Friday, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II appeared in federal district court in Alexandria to contest the EPA’s use of the Clean Water Act to punish Virginia and Fairfax County for sending too much water into a watershed. “These regulations are expensive, cumbersome and incredibly difficult to implement,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “And if we can’t stop this from happening in Fairfax County, it’s bound to happen across the state over and over again and at a huge price tag to the taxpayers of the commonwealth.”

The EPA’s latest action is a classic example of how Washington agencies constantly expand their purpose. Congress first adopts legislation bearing a title nobody could reasonably oppose — who’s against clean water? Over time, the courts and bureaucrats systematically extend the meaning of formerly innocuous definitions. Now instead of keeping lead out of drinking water, the agency is keeping water out of creeks…

via EDITORIAL: EPA regulates water – Washington Times.

Invincible Ignorance – Thomas Sowell

This is the best I’ve seen on the topic of gun control.

Invincible Ignorance

Dec 18, 2012

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries– and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was not the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s– after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions– there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem– including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a “study” that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

via Invincible Ignorance – Thomas Sowell.

Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter | Portland

Here’s something you won’t see in the mainstream media about the Oregon Mall shooting.

Turns our a concealed carry holder was there and aimed his gun at the killer. He didn’t shoot because he saw an innocent behind the killer and feared a missed shot might hit the innocent. Still, note the last line of his quote:

“He was working on his rifle,” said Meli. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.”As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.Meli took cover inside a nearby store.

He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.”I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

via Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter | Portland.

Obama has hired 101 new federal employees per day…

Shocking… But, not really.

In the 1,420 days since he took the oath of office, the federal government has daily hired on average 101 new employees. Every day. Seven days a week. All 202 weeks. That makes 143,000 more federal workers than when Obama talked forever on that cold day in January of 2009.

via Americans believe public workers better paid and more secure Bingo! by Andrew Malcolm – Customer Reviews: By Force of Patriots

Woo hoo! Here is my latest review! 5-Star. Thanks Chris!

Whereas I have not yet completed the book, it is very interesting..there is much information which would have taken me hours to pursue and locate, it is set in a time period just ahead of us but with potential for the various things to actually happen. I am pleased with the writing, enjoy the fact that it is fiction, a small romance involvement makes it intriguing and I like the interplay between the characters. Highly recommend BY FORCE OF PATRIOTS by Cameron Reddy.

via Customer Reviews: By Force of Patriots.

Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire – Washington Times

Looks like I may be asked to speak about this issue.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed “mentally incompetent” to have their cases adjudicated by a judge — rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently — and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.

via Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire – Washington Times. Degas’ review of By Force of Patriots

This is pretty interesting. After a string of 5-star reviews I got my first 3-star. Actually, I like what the reviewer said, and he pretty clearly understood that I’ve written a conservative manifesto wrapped into a thrilling story (well, as you will see, he didn’t think the story was so thrilling–perhaps a function of his admitted bias?). Still, this is an honest opinion and he touches on things that no one else has. And I really like his last two sentences!

This novel is basically a monologue on the erosion of the U.S. Constitution. As such, it does a good job of citing court cases and documents pertaining to such landmark cases as Marbury vs. Madison. It goes into great depth about the intentions of the Framers, and gives specific historic examples… all suitably referenced. If you are unfamiliar with the precedents that have moved our Nation to it’s current state, “By Force of Patriots” is a good reference work. Due to my own bias, I would recommend a careful reading of this book.

Mr. Reddy obviously understood that, in order to get people to read this book, he was going to have to submit it as a work of fiction. As a result, there is a somewhat disjointed story that, IMO, was basically shoved into the cracks between the legal points of his argument. Given what I believe is the undeniable fact that the entire book is published as a vehicle for his viewpoint and opinions, I would give this work 5 stars for educational content. However, I can only give it 1, or perhaps 2, for the story. This is how I came up with 3 stars as my overall opinion. If you’re looking for a fun, fast-paced read for a rainy Saturday, this isn’t the book. To both read and comprehend, you’ll need to spend some time with it. I would also recommend the book because, regardless of your political leanings, it will make you THINK. (emphasis supplied.)

via Degas’ review of By Force of Patriots.

‘2016’ Oscar Snub nothing but Political Bias

This surprise anyone?

Gerald Molen, the Oscar-winning producer of Schindler’s List, is claiming political bias because a documentary movie he produced this year isn’t up for an Oscar, even though that film, 2016: Obama’s America, made more money at the box office than the combined earning of the 15 films the Academy deemed eligible.

via ‘2016’ Oscar Snub Has Filmmakers Claiming Political Bias – The Hollywood Reporter.

A heartwarming Video will make you feel better.

Oh my God is this something. Watch this to feel better about life.

Stevens, who reportedly has the physical abilities of a 6-month-old but an intellectual ability close to his age level, is laid on the ground, unable to stand on his own. Kievit bends down to shake his outstretched hand, and begins fake wrestling with Stevens as the match begins. As the crowd cheers, Kievit pulls Stevens’ arm over himself, struggling all the while, and allows a beaming Stevens to win the match.

via We Dare You Not to Get a Little Emotional Watching This 7th Grade Wrestling Vid | Video |

The truth about Costas, Belcher and guns, by John Lott

I pointed out today on air with Doug Kellett on Talk Radio 850 WPTF, in Raleigh-Durham, NC, that the Violence Policy Center has found all of 499 killings blamed on concealed weapons holders since 2007. That’s about 100 per year. Considering there are 8 million concealed license holders in the USA, that’s 0.0000125 killings per license holder, per year. Blood in the streets? O.K. Corral shootouts?


The fact is, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save far more lives than they cost.

And this, from John Lott:

Unfortunately, pointing to two deaths here does nothing to advance the case for gun control. Costas’ rant falls under the category of if gun control could save just one life it would be worth it. The argument makes as much sense as saying we shouldn’t have gun control if guns can save one life. The question is the net effect of guns, and what Costas ignores is that guns save a lot more lives than they cost each year. And that’s not even mentioning the roughly 2 million times a year that people use guns defensively.

via The truth about Costas, Belcher and guns | Fox News.

Media Underplays Successful Defensive Gun Use

Here is a pull-quote from a short but excellent article showing the absurd bias against lawful gun use:

This journalistic bias against defensive gun use was especially clear in a 2009 example … when a robber held up a small grocery store at gunpoint, emptied the cash register, then herded the customers into the back room. The store manager “opened fire on the robber, killing him.” The police ruled it “justifiable homicide.” But the Miami New Times reported it as: “South Florida Store Clerks Go Vigilante.”

via PJ Media » Media Underplays Successful Defensive Gun Use.

EPA releases new fuel economy new car window stickers for 2013 model year vehicles

I’ve spoken about this (Global War scores on new cars) in various radio interviews as being an example of the problem we have when we let the executive branch write law. We end up with Obama forcing “Global Warming” garbage down our throats. So, it’s no surprise that for 2013 cars it gets even more intensive.

According to a heavily politicized explanation by the EPA, “for the first time ever, highlight the increased efficiency standards achieved under the Obama Administration that will save families money at the pump starting this year.”

The new sticker will also provide comparable data to compare gasoline-fueled vehicles against all-electric and alternative fuel vehicles–which the EPA calls “next generation”, such as those powered by natural gas…

The new labels will also highlight so-called “greenhouse gas” CO2 emissions and smog emissions. The current label already has an “Environmental Performance” section with a “global warming score” and a “smog score”. The new sticker further highlights the “scores” by integrating them into the main body of the display rather than as an add-on. Like the old sticker, the new sticker announces, “Vehicle emissions are a primary contributor to global warming and smog,” even though global warming has been replaced by “climate change” and the anthropogenic element remains controversial.

via EPA releases new fuel economy new car window stickers for 2013 model year vehicles.