This is going to be good...

Now that we're seeing the beginning stages of the gun ban case unfold, it becomes more and more clear how some people get it, and others, well, just don't. It is quite evident that a large group of people exists who simply refuse to hold people accountable as adults. They simply want to make excuses. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the supporters of the gun ban who protest with their silly signs saying to the effect "Guns Kill!"

Let me fix that sign for you..."People Kill!"

Instead of holding criminals responsible and actually saying what needs to be said, they make excuses and believe everyone will behave, hold hands, and sing Kum Ba Yah if we ban guns. Fact of the matter is, when you ban guns, crime soars. It's happened every time, well, except once, sort of...in 1933, Hitler declared to the world Germany had the most advanced and best gun ban in the world...crime among the people didn't rise, but the police state took care of that and created the definition of war crimes. Back on track, plain and simple, when the citizens of the free world have guns to defend themselves, crime does not rise. When that right is infringed upon and access to guns for self defense is not allowed, crime soars. Look at the stats. I'm not making this up.

What do we really need to say about the gun crimes? Well, to start, where does the majority of it happen? In cities, where poverty is high. How much of the gun crimes happening in these United States is black-on-black crime? Before you throw down the racist card, I'm just going by the numbers. Really, how much gun crime happens in your small town America communities? How much gun crime happens in your farming communities? Those communities can be largely made up of any race in any geographical area? The fact of the matter is this, most gun crimes happen in urban environments where poverty runs rampant. Why aren't we banning poverty? That's a completely different topic and the welfare system has already been discussed.

Next point, the Second Amendment is the building block upon which all others are based. If you don't have the right to bear arms, how do you protect yourself against a tyrannical government or foreign invasion? How do you protect your rights against someone who is willing to use force to take them away if you don't have the necessary arms to combat that force? We can debate and use diplomacy all we want, but diplomacy doesn't work when your opponent doesn't want to use words, reason, and logic.

Some will say the Second Amendment applies to the militia...well, who made up the militias at the time the Constitution was written? The militia was a group of citizens who would be ready to fight in any emergency. Who were those citizens? All able-bodied males. If you look at the actual text of the Second Amendment, it says this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So, let's take a look at this...what protects the free state? The militia, right? Right. Who makes up the members of the militia? The individuals, the people, and for those people to do their necessary duty, keeping and bearing arms is necessary and shall not be infringed. So, considering the militia was all able-bodied males (and we'll allow for females since we have willing and able-bodied women who choose to serve), and arms are necessary to defend the free State, how can you take away the right to bear and keep arms from the individual?

Let me just say this, when is it ever a good idea to infringe upon the rights of others in an attempt to solve a problem? You can't call it a solution if it's infringing upon my rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are listed among our inalienable rights. When you take away might right to self-defense, now you're subjecting me to being incapable of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government's job is not to give out rights or take them away. The government's job is to make sure no one is infringing upon my inalienable rights. The government is not responsible for taking care of me and making me pay taxes to do this duty when I am completely capable of doing it myself. I don't need the government to ban guns or legislate "reasonable" restrictions on them in an effort to provide security and safety for me. I especially don't need the government's services in that area of my life when they can't get the job done in the first place. Have gun crimes stopped? No. Has illegal gun trafficking stopped? No. So, in an effort to stop something they can't stop already, they're going to continue to whittle away at my rights as the law abiding citizen when I need that right to protect myself from the same people they're trying to stop. It's a paradox and for some reason, some people just don't get it. They think ammo registration and databases and microstamping, and gun bans, and more restrictions are going to stop the gun violence when nothing they've done this far is working. What they need to do is encourage more people to take up arms and provide their on security, protection, and self-defense. Through time, fewer criminals will survive their crimes and the rest who think about committing crimes will have to decide whether or not risking their lives to commit crime is worth it. Right now, it's a decision the law-abiding citizens must make and decide if not carrying a firearm for self-defense is worth it.

For me, the decision is simple. I keep fresh batteries in my smoke detectors and I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Do I expect to have a house fire every day? No. Do I buy health insurance? Yes. Do I have life insurance? Yes. Do I expect to get hurt, sick, or die every day? No. It's called precaution. It's called preparedness. It's called taking personal responsibility.

Let Freedom Ring.