Do You Come from a Land Down Under?

 “Residents in apartment blocks locked-down by NSW Health are having their alcohol deliveries policed as part of a policy to limit the number of drinks being consumed each day,” NCA News Wire reported. Government goons are rummaging through private mail deliveries, confiscating alcohol and telling Aussies they can only receive a ration of “six beers or pre-mixed drinks or one bottle of wine.” [More]

Once a penal colony...

[Via  An Hour of Wolves]

It Takes a Village

 This is the electronic concentration camp—the panopticon prison—the Village—in which we are now caged. [More]

True enough.

But I'm not really voting for Donald Trump, but for what his avatar represents.

I'm voting for Number Six.

And if we're to carry the analogy to its conclusion, I'm voting for Number One.

[Via bondmen]

You Are Number Six

We Are All Prisoners of Groupthink - Patrick McGoohan's 1960s cult curiosity turns out to be a parable for our intolerant times [More]

Realize that and never give up trying:

But the thing about Number Six, and what confounds his tormenters, is no matter what they throw at him, he never gives up. Each episode, he defies and rebels and attempts to escape, always seeking creative ways out of his trap, relying on himself, his intellect, his resourcefulness and daring to reclaim his liberty. And each episode he is thwarted, betrayed, recaptured. But he never allows himself to be broken. When one idea fails him, he comes up with another, commits himself to it, and gives it his all. For the sake of his freedom. That strikes me as a pretty fine ideal to strive for.

I could say something about how it ended and what that signified, but I don't want to spoil it for those of you yet to discover the show. I will say I thought the remake sucked.

[Via Mark L]

The Number of the Beast

Six Weeks, Six Cities, 600 Murders [More]

I don't suppose evil has anything to do with it...

[Via Dave Licht]

America Second

Every year, more than 100,000 foreign workers are brought to the U.S. on the H-1B visa and are allowed to stay for up to six years. That number has ballooned to potentially hundreds of thousands each year, as universities and non-profits are exempt from the cap. With more entering the U.S. through the visa, Americans are often replaced and forced to train their foreign replacements. [More]

And some of them marry Americans and/or have children who are "birthright citizens" and they come from places with a different view of government and armed citizens and... I'm sorry, there I go deviating from that "single issue" again.

Besides, Grover's on board with it, and he has the full backing of Fairfax, so thank goodness it's of no concern here.

And still besides, we have a government tasked right there in the Preamble with a duty "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," so no worries.

Right?

[Via Mack H]

"Witness Number Nine"

Oh, well, gee, then hang him. [Read]

What ever happened to Number Six?

The Mark of the Beast

The "666" and "Mark of the Beast" in the title of today's column are not really intended as a theological reference--it's just a handy coincidence that "six hundred threescore and six" happens to be the number of firearms going to Mexico that BATFE's operation seems to have "lost" (just as part of "Operation Fast and Furious")  [More]

The power of Kurt compels you...:)

Outraged!

I think after reading this issue, it will be my last. As a veteran (six years of service) and a member of the Sheriff's Department and volunteer rescue squad, your arguments for the assault weapons, the .50 BMGs etc., vs. healthcare, obscene corporate gas profits and other facts, not opinions, by Mike Matara (Crossfire, March 2006), is about as small as the number of gray cells in Bush's head. Wake up and get your head out of your a**!

I'd seen this letter in an old issue of GUNS Magazine and decided to go looking for it on the Internet so more could read it.

I had no idea RKBA arguments in a gun magazine could possibly alienate leftist "Only Ones." Perhaps I should temper future submissions to be more inclusive so that we can expand our base.

This Day in History: May 28

Fresh ADVICES from the AMERICAN ARMY.

Camp at Cambridge, May 28, 1775.

YESTERDAY a Party from the United American Army was ordered to take the Cattle, Hay, &c. from Noddle's and Hog Islands. While executing their Orders, they were attacked by a Number of the King's Troops from Boston, in an armed Schooner, a Sloop, and 8 or 10 Boats belonging to the Men of War: A brisk Fire began about Four o'Clock, P. M. and continued most of the Night, then ceased a little, and at Dawn of Day was renewed, by which Time Capt. Foster, with two Field Pieces from this Camp, joined our Troops, when a heavy Fire from the Shore on the armed Vessels put them into great Distress. The Schooner's Decks were cleared, and she drifted on the Ferry-Way at Winesimet, where our People sat Fire to her, and she was soon blown up, and destroyed. Sixteen Four-Pounders, and six Swivels, were taken out of her by our People. The Sloop was disabled, and obliged to be towed off by the Men of War's Boats; the Remains of them are returned to their Den. Our People had none killed, three wounded, but none of them dangerously. The Number of killed and wounded of the Enemy not known.

Printed by J. Carter.

David E. Young Interview

Our guest today is David E. Young, author, historian researcher...

Before we begin, a brief biography is in order to introduce some of you to who this man is, what he's done, and why it's important for RKBA activists to know about his significant work.

Biographical Information:
David E. Young

Born, 1947, Flint, Michigan
Graduated with high honors, Michigan State University, 1972, with Bachelor of Science Degree in Park and Recreation Resources specializing in Environmental Interpretation (Naturalist).
Have minors in Music Composition, Mathematics, Earth Sciences, and Biology.

Retired from career with Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources in 2002.
Primarily employed as Park Ranger and Commissioned Park Officer at Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Michigan's largest.

Founded Golden Oak Books in 1987 specifically to self-publish results of research (all self-financed).
Author: True Bear Tales, 1987, 1992, 1996, 2005
Editor: The Origin of the Second Amendment, 1991, 1995, 2001
Author: The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, published Dec. 21, 2007

Hobbies and avocations:
Studying American historical documents relating to development of the Second Amendment as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights and Constitution
Collecting Lake Superior Agates

With the preliminaries out of the way, let's ask some questions!

DC: Until I started doing some background research on you, I’d assumed you were a lifelong academic. But I find out you’re a retired park ranger. Tell me about that part of your life.

DY: A career in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources working as a mid-level state park ranger, primarily at Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, made it possible for me to spend my non-working hours at home with my family pursuing my own interests. For eighteen years at work, I volunteered as a chief steward for the Michigan State Employees Association helping other DNR employees with work related issues; experiences that helped me much better understand people and bureaucracy.

While park ranger may not be the most prestigious of all careers, most Americans trapped in large metro areas can only dream of the fabulous surroundings in which I worked at Michigan's largest state park along the shores of Lake Superior, or the variety of endeavors rangers there were involved in. Porkies rangers are jacks of all trades. As a result of my career, I can do anything (almost).

DC: How did you get interested in Second Amendment scholarship?

DY: Because of the tremendous push for gun control after President Kennedy's assassination in 1963 and the disagreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment that resulted from the gun control agenda that developed afterwards, I got hooked on the controversy over the amendment's intent. By the time I was at Michigan State in the late 60's and early 70's, with the Second Amendment intent dispute continually increasing as more and more gun control laws were sought, I decided to find out for myself exactly why the Founders used the specific language they did and exactly what it meant to them. After graduating from Michigan State University, I decided to pursue in my spare time a personal study of the relevant period historical sources for understanding the Second Amendment. It took several years before it was clear exactly what the RELEVANT historical sources were that I needed to obtain and study.

DC: You started doing your research in the 70’s—long before the Internet made a lot of information available from the comfort of home. I’m assuming it involved a lot of travel and no small amount of personal expense. Give us a feel for what that was like, the major places where you looked for information, an overview of the process you went through…

DY: Not being a wealthy person, having well-to-do relatives, or living next to an extensive university library, I sought out used books early on in my research. Hunting for document collections at used bookstores became a passion. A trip anywhere resulted in considerable time spent rummaging in used bookstores, especially any trip to the East Lansing or Ann Arbor areas. Research led to a better understanding of exactly what sources were those most relevant, and it became apparent that I must do some library research as well as obtain certain document collections, even if that meant buying new books. The more information I got, the more information it became apparent would be needed. I made several overnight trips specifically to hunt for material at Northern Michigan University's library. I also started forking out a small fortune by my standards for new copies of document collections so they could be pursued at my own pace at home. The $50+ price of many of these volumes needed in the late 70's and early 80's was really a problem due to the fact that my wife took care of our children and did not have an outside job, and park ranger is not the highest paid of professions.

DC: Any surprises along the way? Did you glean any information from any unlikely sources? Did you have any preconceptions challenged or overturned?

DY: I was surprised how little attention those arguing the Second Amendment's intent paid to The Origin of the Second Amendment, with a clear exception for Dave Kopel, who has reviewed it four different times and used it extensively in one of his articles. I was also surprised that ORIGIN did not bring a relatively quick end to the Second Amendment intent dispute, which is probably because everyone largely ignored it.

Unlikely source: I noticed an almost exact analog of the Second Amendment engraved across the front of Angell Hall at the University of Michigan many years ago on a used bookstore hunting trip. It took a number of years before I discovered that the analog sentence came from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. [In the Heller case respondent's brief, it is pointed out that the Northwest Ordinance containing the analog was reauthorized by Congress the same year it passed the Bill of Rights amendments].

Preconceptions: Well, like everyone else, I have my own little theories about why certain things happened based on the available historical facts. My first theory about why there is Virginia and Pennsylvania style state bill of rights language combined in the Second Amendment was wrong. After obtaining all the historical facts, it became apparent that my original idea was not tenable. This situation is the very reason why I quit writing short articles after the 1970's and pursued collecting all of the Constitutional Era sources before writing anything else. It is also the reason why I have studied the sources an additional sixteen years before writing my new book, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms. Much of the material that has appeared in law review articles over the decades has consisted of little theories based on partial facts that are not consistent with all of the historical facts.

DC: Tell me about the “Bear” book. And while you’re at it, and understanding that there are many behaviors people can follow to minimize dangerous encounters, if you were attacked by an aggressive bear, what would you prefer as your ultimate backup: pepper spray or a firearm with adequate stopping power?

DY: True Bear Tales is a collection of anecdotal black bear stories, mostly from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, that were collected during my career at Fort Wilkins and Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Parks. The Porkies was black bear problems central in the Upper Peninsula in the past. My stories are presented as humorous incidents (with a few appropriate exceptions) so that those interested can understand what the bears are usually doing as well as what they are capable of doing. True Bear Tales, which is sold mostly to tourists in the Copper Country region of Michigan, is the funding source for publication of my Second Amendment research. Without the bear book, the Second Amendment related books might not exist.

As for the hypothetical bear encounter question, the ultimate backup is a firearm. Note, however, that bear spray is very, very effective when properly used.

DC: I’ve told WarOnGuns readers before that the most dog-eared book on my shelf is “The Origin of the Second Amendment.” Give us the Cliffs Notes version of what it’s about. How many years in the making was it, from concept to publication? And here’s kind of a nosy follow-up, but as one who appreciates what you’ve given us, I’d like to know if we almost didn’t get it: Were you ever tempted to give up along the way?

DY: Origin of the Second Amendment is a complete document collection relating to the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights covering the period from 1787, when the Constitution was written, until 1792, when notification of the Bill of Rights' ratification was announced. ORIGIN contains relevant material literally transcribed from newspaper articles, editorials, broadsides, pamphlets, speeches, proceedings, and amendment proposals that directly or indirectly relate to the Second Amendment and its adoption as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights. It was first published in 1991 and took twenty years of collecting documents to produce. It took about two years to type in all the material. The documents are presented without editorial comment as to their meaning or significance. The second edition has just short of 800 pages of documents, which includes approximately 450 separate sources, and runs about 900 pages total. It is a research tool for Second Amendment buffs. I decided in the mid-1980's to publish all of the documents as the dispute over Second Amendment intent continued unabated.

I was never tempted to give up along the way, first, because the historical materials I uncovered always reinforced the rights protecting nature of the Second Amendment, and second, because the anti-rights "scholars" just kept spinning and explaining away our history and culture as if they never existed and were completely unimportant.

DC: Was Emerson your first “big break” in terms of being cited in a court case? How did your work influence the 5th Circuit ruling?

DY: Yes, the 2001 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Emerson was the first time ORIGIN was cited by a court. In fact, that was also the first case in which ORIGIN was cited to a court. Thus, for the first time, judges had all of the Constitutional Era documents relating to the Second Amendment easily available to base a decision on. The court's justices used ORIGIN to verify the accuracy of the competing arguments being presented to them about the Second Amendment's intent and also to document their decision with over a hundred citations.

I have examined the Emerson decision very carefully because of the large number of cites to ORIGIN. Probably two of the justices and at least one court clerk actually read The Origin of the Second Amendment in order to come up with the decision and its particular layout. The Appendix to the Emerson decision is based upon ORIGIN but not solely upon the documents cited from it. The organization of the Appendix is clearly based on a series of period arguments presented in the Introduction to The Origin of the Second Amendment. I do not claim that ORIGIN won the case because there was lots of material from other pro-rights scholars presented in a number of amicus briefs in that case. Only the Second Amendment Foundation cited ORIGIN, however.

DC: Your work is also cited in Heller? By whom, and how did they use it?

DY: Both The Origin of the Second Amendment and my new definitive history, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, have been cited extensively in the Heller case.

ORIGIN was cited a total of thirty-eight times in six briefs supporting Heller, including the respondent's merits brief by Alan Gura, and amicus briefs from Academics for the Second Amendment, Gun Owners of America, State Firearms Associations, Retired Military Officers, and the Paragon Foundation, as well as in two briefs supporting DC. One of the latter cited ORIGIN twenty-eight times along with numerous other period sources in an attempt to snow the justices, event though some of their cited documents directly contradict their own argument and none of them actually support it.

The Founders View of the Right to Bear Arms, which was just published a few weeks after the Supreme Court consented to review the Heller case, has been cited a total of seventeen times in various pro-Heller briefs, including Alan Gura's respondent's merits brief and amicus briefs from Gun Owners of America, the Pennsylvania Senate President Pro-tem, and Academics for the Second Amendment. Both books were used largely to document various historical facts. It is also the case that some other points in the respondent's brief were based upon information presented in The Founders' View and cited to the original period documents, which I provided upon request.

DC: Tell us about your newest book, “The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms.” How does it tie in with “Origin”? How does it diverge?

DY: The Founders View is a concise history. In other words, it is my straightforward story about the relevant history, not a document collection like ORIGIN. The Founders' View traces only the most relevant American characters, comments, actions, and resolutions that resulted in development and adoption of the Second Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights. My new book relies on ORIGIN as its main document source for the Constitutional Era. ORIGIN intentionally included all Constitutional Era sources, whereas, The Founders' View covers only the most relevant information by design in an effort to cut through all the decades of politicized spin and get to the heart of the matter in a concise manner.

DC: Where do your sales come from? The Internet? Your site? Online vendors like Amazon? Brick-and-mortar chains? College bookstores? And what can readers do to help raise awareness, get stores to carry them and libraries to order them?

DY: Most sales in recent years came from Amazon. The Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America have sold ORIGIN in the past and both will probably sell the Founders' View, although, at present, only Gun Owners of America has it listed on the book sales page. The only "bookstore" to carry ORIGIN was that located as part of Guncraft Sports in Knoxville, TN. The vast majority of those who obtained ORIGIN were actually individuals who are died-in-the-wool Second Amendment types, just like you, David. Often, they are so fed up with all the wrangling in the law reviews about the Second Amendment's intent that they decided to actually take a look at the documents and see all the historical facts for themselves.

Awareness is the big problem. Other than a few of the brief writers in the Heller case and those who have actually read those briefs, practically no one is aware that the new book, The Founders' View, exists, or that it actually contains a considerable number of new and essential facts for understanding the development and purpose of the Second Amendment. Libraries are always happy to hear from people regarding the books they would like the library to obtain. All one has to do is ask. Bookstores are not ever likely to carry either of these books because they are set up to handle commercially published books. Readers can help raise awareness by informing their friends who are interested in the Second Amendment about my books' existence, just as you are doing with this interview.

DC: So what is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Insurrection? A National Guard? Hunting? Self defense?

DY: The goal of the Second Amendment is to secure the free state the people have authorized against possible future tyranny. This requires that the militia, the able-bodied males, be capable of effective self-embodying defensive action, something which is dependent on them having access to their own arms and knowledge of their use. The only way to assure this against misconstruction and abuse of the government's powers is to protect the right of individuals to have and use arms for any legitimate purposes. The overriding concern is mutual defense against government tyranny, which is entirely dependent upon each individual having the right and ability to defend himself so he can associate with others for defense of the community if ever necessary. Hunting and target shooting, etc., are clearly beneficial aspects of this right, and since they involve having and using arms, are protected. I have emphasized the developmental historical examples relating to these points in The Founders' View.

DC: Here’s an unfair question. Look into your crystal ball and give us the likely outcome of Heller. Do you think SCOTUS will rule it an individual right with a lower standard than strict scrutiny, and if so, what’s the next best challenge or strategy to proceed?

DY: This IS entirely out of my area of expertise, so here is my guess. I think it likely that the Supreme Court's Heller decision will be 7-0, maybe even a 9-0, that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right. The justices will not want to write an opinion that is directly contradicted by overwhelming historical evidence. Any split will be over the level of scrutiny. The minority, if any, will want a low level of scrutiny so most laws, including DC's complete handgun ban, will be considered reasonable and constitutional. I think the majority will rule that the Second Amendment, like the first, protects fundamental rights. My research, which has been set directly before the Court in several different briefs, certainly backs up a fundamental right of the highest order. None of our rights would ever have been protected in any of the original American bills of rights if Americans had not been armed and able to protect those rights against the British. The British claimed a right to "bind Americans in all cases whatsoever," and they attempted to enforce their right with arms.

However, the Court has a simple means to avoid making this type of ruling if it so desires. It can simply affirm the lower court ruling in Parker, leaving all other issues to future cases. Because the historical sources are so clear and voluminous, and also because The Founders' View makes the development of the Second Amendment so easily understood by presenting the rest of the history not previously known, I have great hopes that the Court will make a historic ruling by addressing the clear history in this case. If there is any delay in promulgation of the decision, I predict just as I did for the Emerson case that the justices are actually reading the period sources. That would be a very good sign because the result will be another blockbuster individual rights ruling like Emerson, but actually overturning an unconstitutional law in this case.

DC: I’ve had a bone to pick with some of the leading 2A academics for some time. Some have deemed registration not to be an infringement on RKBA because of the requirement for militia members to muster with specified armaments and accoutrements, which would then be logged into the rolls. My argument is that ensuring an adequately equipped fielded force is one thing—but it’s not the same as making citizens register everything back at home they did not bring with them, nor did it require those not in service to provide such information—and likewise, private sales/bartering between individuals were commonly just that, with no record or trail. Thoughts?

DY: Gun control advocates refer to the period requirement under militia laws of showing up at militia muster with a specific type of firearm, or the very rare provision which provided for unannounced visits by officers to men's homes for the purpose of verifying their possession of the required type of firearm, as registration. Such period requirements were far different than the registration that anti-rights types want imposed by government today. Many people would happily comply with a government provision requiring them to possess the current issue military rifle, and even a requirement that militia officers could show up unannounced and demand that a man actually get his firearm out of the house and show it to them. But that is far, far from what gun control advocates are after, isn't it? Don't hold your breath for them to push adoption of true militia laws anytime soon.

The specific action underpinning Americans' modern distrust of gun control advocate inspired registration was the disarming of Bostonians after the Battles of Lexington and Concord. What started out as an agreement to turn in arms so people who desired to could depart from town with all of their other possessions soon unilaterally morphed on the part of the British into a decree that all were enemies of the King who possessed any. Anyone found afterwards with hidden arms in their house was put into prison for 75 days. It is interesting how those who have a monopoly or massive overplus of force have a habit of making everyone else do what they want, by force if necessary. There is no reason why the government needs a list of all firearms and owners other than to make it easy to seize such arms, an action giving those in control of the government a monopoly of force never intended, in fact, protected against under our Constitution. Registration of firearms and owners is not much different than registration of Jews or any other religion or sect. Why register those who exercise their rights?

DC: I’ve reported that you’ll be attending NRA’s upcoming 2008 Annual Meeting in Louisville, KY. When is that, what will you be doing there, and how can people meet you in person?

DY: Yes, I will be at the Second Amendment Films booth (number 1551) on all three days of the Show at the NRA Exhibits Hall. The Show days are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, May 16, 17, and 18. I will be answering questions, discussing points of interest to attendees, and promoting not only my own books, The Origin of the Second Amendment and The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, but also David Hardy's Documentary, In Search of the Second Amendment. David Hardy will also be present at the booth on Saturday the 17th and Sunday the 18th, but he will be at the Firearms Law Seminar all day Friday. We are calling this unique event for an NRA Show "Hardy and Young giving 'em Heller". Second Amendment Films will be selling copies of my books and David Hardy's DVD Documentary at booth 1551 during the Show hours.

To meet me, all one need do is stop by booth 1551. It is located about four booths from the back of the Exhibits Hall in the 1500's isle, which runs approximately in the middle of the Hall from front to back. Note, however, that It is not a through aisle. Sometimes people miss booths using the standard up and down each isle method to make sure and see everything. Most of the isles are not through isles at this year's show due to large displays by major manufacturers. Anyone who is interested should stop by and have a chat. It ought to be most interesting, especially now that the Heller case is before the Supreme Court. I can imagine a lot of friendly animated discussion.

DC: Any thoughts you’d like to share with WarOnGuns visitors before we open the floor for questions?

DY: I specialize in study of the Constitutional Era and, to a lesser extent, the Colonial and Revolutionary Eras. Remember that my area of expertise is the development and adoption of the Second Amendment ending with Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson's announcement regarding ratification of the Bill of Rights amendments on March 1, 1792. Historical questions about anything after that date are simply requests for my personal opinion based on my best guess. Ask away!

----------------
Thank you, David E. Young. This has already been a real education as well as a pleasure, and I can't wait to see what else we're going to learn here today.

Now comes the time when I promised I'd turn the questioning over to WarOnGuns visitors. Before I do, I'd like to set the ground rules to keep everything on track.

Please look at the questions I asked and the questions posed by others so we're not covering the same ground twice, and please heed the caveat about Mr. Young's area of expertise. Please limit your questions and give everyone a chance.

And of course, off-topic posts, spam and obscenities will be deleted without comment.

Finally, and this is important: Please ask him concise questions. We're here to hear him out, not post essays or engage other question posters in debate. Look at my questions as a general guide to requested length. If, based on my judgment I think it appropriate, I'll just hit "delete" and you can take it up with me by email [dcodreaAThotmailDOTcom].

Sorry if this seems rule-heavy, but I've learned I need to do this from past interviews to keep things running smoothly. If we keep things on track and just observe a few simple courtesies, we all ought to learn from this and have a good time.

One last note--I disabled CAPTCHA word verification on comment posts for the duration of this interview.

The floor is now open for questions.

COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED

Past WarOnGuns Interviews:
Matthew Bracken
David Hardy
Ryan Horsley
Clayton Cramer

We're the Only Ones "Dirty Dozen" Enough

Under pressure to increase their numbers, the Army and Marine Corps are sharply raising the number of recruits with felony convictions they are admitting to the services.

So they'll be giving M16s to "prohibited persons"?

If we ever suffer a major natural or induced catastrophe requiring military control, their inclusion among "The Only Ones" should make for some interesting dynamics.

Still, this give me an excuse to segue into this, from one of my favorite "guy" movies:

One: down to the road block, we've just begun
Two: the guards are through
Three: the Major's men are on a spree
Four: Major and Wladislaw go through the door
Five: Pinkley stays out in the drive
Six: the Major gives the rope a fix
Seven: Wladislaw throws the hook to heaven
Eight: Jiménez has got a date
Nine: the other guys go up the line
Ten: Sawyer and Gilpin are in the pen
Eleven: Posey guards points five and seven
Twelve: Wladislaw and the Major go down to delve
Thirteen: Franko goes up without being seen
Fourteen: Zero-hour, Jiménez cuts the cable, Franko cuts the phone
Fifteen: Franko goes in where the others have been
Sixteen: we all come out like it's Halloween.

This Day in History: March 25

Upon requisition of the Marine Committee of Congress for thirty stand of Arms, or two Wall-Pieces and twenty-six Muskets, for the fitting out the Brigantine Lexington for the protection of the trade of this coast, by order of the Board Robert Towers, Commissary; was directed to deliver said number of Arms to Captain Barry, or his order.

Guest Editorial: Tribe of the Timid

By Robert R Hamlyn

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Thomas Jefferson

From The Declaration of Independence.

"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

James Madison

From The Constitution of the United States

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Abraham Lincoln

From the Gettysburg Address

We are the sum total of our inheritance. We are our own history made manifest. We represent everything our ancestors learned, developed, created, and destroyed. We are their progeny and as such represent all they will ever have had. We are the ever-expanding culmination of the wandering tribes, the nomadic bands, the hunters and gatherers, and the wayfaring peoples of all the continents and all the oceans of the globe.

Our progenitors have won wars, freed enslaved peoples, and stamped out tyranny all over the world. And here we are at this point in our history worshipping youth while simultaneously degrading the education system that would shape it, ostensibly adoring its unique individuality while concurrently denying its right of individual responsibility, replacing the notion of earned self sufficiency with the expectation of Federal entitlement. We are debasing individual worth with a communization of character, a socialism of the soul.

For far too long we have been standing on the brink of a voluntary surrender of everything we should hold dear as Americans. The values our parents tried to teach us were true; that’s why they tried to teach us: "There’s no such thing as something for nothing. If you want something you have to work for it. If it sounds too good to be true, it is." Yet notions such as self-reliance, self-determinism, and self-respect now sound impossibly quaint as if part of some wonderful pioneer spirit that existed prior to traffic lights, flushing toilets, and other necessities of contemporary civilization.

A mayor of a great Eastern city in the United States once said that for every benefit there is an obligation. He was of course talking about his city’s municipal dole and the expected program of participation the recipients would incur. For most of the people in this country he could just as well have been talking about the Bill of Rights. The public mood seems to be: give me 2.5% on my money market and you can have my social security number, give me universal health care and you can have fifty percent of my income, give me free community transit and you can tell me when and where and how I’ll conduct my affairs.

We have taken the heritage passed on to us by our parents, the children of the Depression, the World War II Generation, and we have collectively pissed it away. The whole country has become a mob, a flock of sheep, a name-brand conscious tribe of consumers with its character diminished. We have become the Tribe of the Timid. Even more alarming, we expect the source of all good things to be a benevolent government.

The documents that form the foundation of our society, the conceptual building blocks of our nation: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, proclaim for us as citizens of this country a number of rights with which we were born; and each right demands a corresponding responsibility of good citizenship as well as the responsibility of eternal vigilance. Yet we have abandoned that responsibility in allowing ourselves to be lulled by the pleas of the statist politicians, their undisclosed soft-money donors, their unseen sycophants, and their ilk that would ban not only the private ownership of certain kinds of property (for example, guns) but the logic behind it as well, in return for which we would presumably be the beneficiaries of their wonderful philanthropy.

Since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 American gun-owners have been besieged with an unending litany of appeals for "reasonable compromise", "common sense precautions", and "socially responsible restrictions". The republic, which the Constitution was presumed to have wrought, has endured an incessant encroachment of the constitutionally guaranteed right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. "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..." until now, as we stand at the brink of the "final solution". After seventy-four years of restrictions, and controls, and bans, and limitations that have yet to work what is the answer?

As Neal Knox asserted, the unfailing solution for a failed law is a tighter law continuing the cycle toward the inevitable: the total and irrevocable banning of civilian possession of all guns. Over the past few years we have seen the very same pattern in process in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and in the people’s republics of California and New Jersey. And what manner of catastrophic failure has bequeathed upon us this wondrous bounty of thousands of gun laws that somehow aren’t quite enough? Very simply put: the fallacy that people are not responsible for their own acts.

Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by those who would proffer them embrace the same philosophy. They are founded on the belief that America’s law abiding gun owners are the source of the problem. Wringing their hands and rending their garments, their media mouthpieces proselytize that with our profane appetite for guns we are ostensibly creating a society saturated in a sea of guns, thereby turning innocents to evil, and helping the underprivileged (read juvenile delinquents) become vested in their respective criminal enterprise.

When a six-year-old boy took a gun to school and shot a six-year-old girl, who was to blame? According to the prosecutor for that county that poor little boy was a victim. The child could not be held to blame because the child was six years old and incapable of forming intent. The father was not to blame because the father was in jail. The mother was not to blame because the mother was chemically dependent upon crack cocaine and had left the child with a relative while she went to work. So if no one was to blame are we to conclude that this was a victimless crime? Are we to conclude that the little girl was an unintended consequence in a series of actions for which no one was held to account? No, according to the county prosecutor the little six-year-old boy was a victim of the gun culture. The prosecutor failed to mention the fact that the gun belonged to the mother’s boyfriend and that the little boy found the gun in his mother’s bedroom.

In "A Nation Of Cowards," Jeff Snyder states: "This charging of moral blame for violent crime on the law abiding, and the tacit exoneration of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally enrages honest gun owners."

(Accurate Press, Lonedell, MO., 2001. "A Nation of Cowards" first appeared in The Public Interest, Number 113, Fall 1993.)

Indeed. Consider the 45 year old Washington man who, when visiting friends and relatives on the East Coast, was confronted with the demand to explain what possible good the presence of firearms served in a society in which someone could just go pick up a gun on the street corner and murder in cold blood a girlfriend made pregnant by someone else (a third party), and didn’t he (the man from Washington) agree that something had to be done about the gun problem? Why couldn’t he just be reasonable and agree to the solution that was best for everybody?

Unbeknownst to the man from Washington, that very scenario had played itself out the previous week in a major East Coast city. The man from Washington had no connection whatsoever to the murderer, the murder victim, the street corner vendor selling stolen guns out of the trunk of his stolen car, or the alleged father. Yet he was expected to defend in principle a murderer. The man from Washington was absolutely confounded by the notion that although he had owned firearms for the previous thirty years and had not ever killed anyone, let alone ever committed any crime, he was expected to agree to willingly hand over his property so that miscreants and lunatics, over which he had no control, could do no harm.

His retort to his erstwhile petitioners was: "You can’t legislate against lunacy. Why should I be punished for somebody else’s crime?" But his reply fell on deaf ears. He could not reconcile the level of their vitriolic hysteria with what he knew the gun culture to be and he could not help but wonder as to exactly where in the continent this rift of perception occurred.

It is not simply East vs. West, or North vs. South, but it is very literally Us vs. Them. We have let our society become striated. We have allowed ourselves to become a nation of the governors and the governed.

Liberal elite, conservative elite, ruling elite, the demarcation becomes frayed until one latches onto the defining term: elite. It is the mindset of our self-appointed privileged few who would do our thinking for us, make our choices for us, and keep us safe from ourselves and who understand that, like our elected representatives, laws are for other people. The self-interested elitist cadres who would exclude our voice from the highest councils of government would never be subject to their own handiwork. Rather, they would assemble myriad obstacles before us for the sole purpose of fatiguing us into compliance with their measures.

In Jeffrey Snyder’s "A Nation Of Cowards", he makes a brief summary of Plato’s Republic, comparing the proffered perfect society to our own... "The liberal elite know that they are our philosopher-kings. They know that the masses can not be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things and they know what is right for us. The very notion of the private ownership of firearms is a refutation to their Utopian zeal

(A Nation of Cowards, The Public Interest, No. 113, Fall, 1993)."

The elite know these things because it is their professedly heartfelt contention that if we would just be reasonable and compromise our sadly mistaken notions of what gun ownership is really about and concede to their wishes for a disarmed society we would finally have harmonious communities safe for families and ensure the stability of our democracy. Our nation would finally be safe for our young and old alike. In fact we would at last enjoy living in the safest nation on earth. (May I humbly point out that the safest nation on earth is currently Communist China?) Indeed we would inherit Plato’s Republic, St. Augustine’s Utopia, the Global Village, the One-world Government foretold in a much-neglected book from long ago. And as the intelligentsia scoff, and the literati chuckle, and the Illuminati sneer, and the paparazzi take their pictures, the people in this country who are old enough and fortunate enough to have been raised in nuclear families nod in mute understanding.

It seems that what we sometimes tend to forget is that the Bill of Rights is not a list of ancillary privileges granted to the populace by a beneficial Utopian governing body, but that it is the enunciation of unalienable rights with which we were all born. Indeed, in the Declaration of Independence, those convened to sign it agreed:

"...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

There is much talk now of repealing the Second Amendment. So what? If the Second Amendment were repealed, that in itself could not nullify a pre-existing condition. Like it or not, believe it or not, it is a right granted by God, and as such cannot be taken away. Just as you are responsible for yourself, you are also responsible to yourself. Inasmuch as your life is a gift from God it is not yours to squander. Indeed you have an obligation to yourself, your family, and your community as well as to your Creator to cherish and defend it and to guard against the greater evil of those who would deprive you of your God-granted freedoms.

"But wait!" You say. "What if someone doesn’t believe in God?" You ask. OK, what if you are intellectually incapable of believing in God: a Higher Being, a Force greater than yourself, because there is no proof, no empirical evidence for the existence of God? For you, these notions of God-granted gifts and God-granted freedoms would not apply, would they?

No problem. Whether you believe in God or not, you are still responsible for yourself. If you believe that all you have is you in this life, that nothing in the

Universe of known and unknown things can be greater than yourself, that there is nothing else after, no light at the end of the tunnel, no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, if you believe these things, why on earth would you abdicate your responsibility to safeguard your welfare and that of your family, to someone else: a "benign" government, a benefic state?

There are countries in the world in which their governments do not recognize the right of an individual to self-defense. Think about that for a minute. Now think about this: what is the first intrinsic and immutable drive of every living organism on earth?

Answer: self-preservation. Yet these governments of enlightened self interest would proscribe by legislation that which it is hard wired into our very DNA to do: protect ourselves. It is not by accident that the governments that do not recognize a right to self-defense also do not recognize a right to the private ownership of firearms. And it will happen here.

If we, the collective voting constituency, of every politician in the United States let those people in Washington D.C., push this nonsense of repealing the Second Amendment through, it will happen here.

Private ownership of firearms and the resolve to use them are the method and manner by which we as Americans keep our selves free. But the question that we have to ask ourselves is: in our heart of hearts, the place where we will admit to only ourselves that which we would admit to no other, do we have the resolve to use them?

We are closer now than at any previous time in our history of having the Constitution redefined by those who would re-engineer American Society according to the empyrean ideals they hold dear. We have the Bill of Rights and, yes, men and women have died to preserve it. If we are the culmination of the people that founded this country and let their fine and shining achievement slip away, how will our children regard us?

A citizen of any society must be willing to take upon himself the personal responsibility for the quality of the society of which he is a part. Just as one must vote to ensure proper representation in the legislative assemblies from school board and city council to the Congress and the Executive, and just as one must from time to time participate in jury duty, one must not shirk the personal responsibility of actively defending oneself and protecting one’s family from the fear of harm by cutting short the threat of violent crime at its root: the criminal. (Snyder, Ibid.)

Similarly, a government that would deprive its citizens of any of the basic rights upon which this nation was founded would be nothing less than criminal in nature. It is time to cut short the threat to our own liberty. Once we as a nation give into the agitprop proposed by the political elitists that only the state is capable of legitimate action, that only the state is the source of our earthly salvation, that only

the state can provide society's moral moorings, and that only the state can be trusted with firearms, we will have transformed ourselves from a nation of citizens to a nation of subjects and will, at that time, be subject to whatever treatment the ruling elite that forms the state deems proper to administer.

This is not a call to arms. It is a plea for each of us to examine our own conscience. We’ve all heard the tired rhetoric: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands". Really? Tell your friends whatever you like but be honest with yourself. Will you really take your rifle and start picking off the confiscators as they come lumbering down your street with their trucks full of your neighbors guns? And who do you suppose those confiscators will be? Will it be some alien constabulary with vaguely European sounding speech? Or will they be the police officers with whom you grew up and who have served your community well? Do you suppose it will be some foreign division in oddly colored uniforms and blue helmets? Or will it be the local National Guard unit staffed with your own friends, neighbors and relatives? Are you really prepared to use deadly force against people you know to protect a noble idea? What are you going to do?

We need to take a brief respite from our universally shared virtual reality of Walter Mitty and admit some basic facts of life to ourselves. Some (most) guns will be easily removed. Some of us may put up a show of symbolic protest or actual physical resistance for the benefit of the cameras that most assuredly will be there. Many, if not most of us, will simply turn in our means of personal protection when told to do so. Perhaps a few of us across the country may actually take to arms and try to defend what we understand our freedom to be about.

But this is where you need to be honest with yourself. Will you count yourself among the rest of the good citizens who are too scared to oppose anything the government tells them to do and toss your guns in the back of the truck? Or, when faced with the certainty of losing your house, your job, your standing in the community, your means of support and self reliance, and even your family, will you stand in the way of a government that would proclaim itself as master redefining the role of it’s citizens as subjects? When the time comes you will know what to do--either you will, or you won’t do it. Bear in mind the words of

H. L. Mencken: "To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler would it be if men died for ideas that were true." How much of a sacrifice are you honest-to-God willing to make?

"...All experience hath shown that mankind are disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Thomas Jefferson

From the Declaration of Independence

Fortunately while we still have time, there is a weapon available to us for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone of legal age--the ballot box. Don’t throw away your opportunity to vote: the most morally challenged man in the history of the Oval Office was put there with 46% of the popular vote. We have before us the prospect of shaping the tone, text, form and content of life in this country for the rest of the century. In spite of the oft told proclamation that the two party system of American politics is as hollow as two empty whiskey bottles, and neither one of much substance, we have as clear a choice as can be made between two disparate views of government: that between the constitutionally prescribed tradition of representative government, and handing the reigns of government over to those who would continue to usurp our rights in a campaign of incremental expropriation. If we choose the latter, before you know it, the Bill of Rights will have been expunged by Executive Order. It is time for us to vote our convictions.

Until we resolve to once again define ourselves as a nation of equals defined by laws predicated on common sense and not on the unsolicited judgment of the upper echelon we shall remain the Tribe of the Timid.

*****

The essay above is from a forthcoming novel. Although it is taken from a work of fiction I believe it is relevant to the discussion in this venue. I thank David Codrea for his including the Tribe of the Timid in The War On Guns.

R Hamlyn


*****

AFTERWORD from David Codrea

I agreed to feature this on WarOnGuns with a caveat--here is what I sent to Mr. Hamlyn:

Very well written. Compelling in the first three-quarters.

Here's the thing--I disagree with some of your conclusions.

No one recomends a last stand against the national guard or police officers surrounding your house. That would be tactically stupid and self-defeating But make no mistake that some who feign compliance will take the fight to the oppressors on terms and at times of their choosing. Not many, true, but you don't need that many. I'd hazard 1% of the big talkers could have quite an impact. If the cartridge box is not the ultimate check and balance guarantor, we might as well just fold up the tents now.

I just don't see the ballot box being a reliable fallback--not in this election--not with this conditioned public. What majority rule giveth, majority rule taketh away.

That said, and no, I ain't goin' soft, I believe this essay is a good reference point for discussion, a nexus between irascible absolutists like myself and those who consider their approach more "pragmatic." Besides, I don't mean for this caveat to imply that I don't strongly agree with much of what he's written here--he is right about much, he makes his case well, and his arguments need to be heard and understood.

Feel free to engage in reasoned discourse, below. I'm sure Bob will be checking in from time to time, so also feel free to engage him directly.

More Guns Less Crime

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

Who could have imagined?

And I just love this character Kenneth Levin:

In a letter to the Free Press in July 2001, he referred to the "inevitable first victim of road or workplace rage as a result of this law."

Last month, Levin said he suspected "it probably hasn't turned out as bad as I thought. I don't think I was wrong, but my worst fears weren't realized."

You were clearly wrong, dead wrong, demonstrably wrong, couldn't have been more wrong, out there bare-ass naked in the town square* wrong, but you don't "think" you were wrong? That's OK, Kenneth. Just squeeze your eyes shut real tight, put your hands over your ears and chant "LALALALA!" real loud and maybe the truth will go away.

How do you spell "zealot"?

[* Stolen shamelessly from Stieger]

BREAKING NEWS: GUN CONTROL LAWS AFFECT LAW-ABIDING!!!

The number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts is falling.

In the past six years, gun licenses have dropped by 25 percent, a decline driven by more restrictive laws, higher fees and a gradual change in culture, according to law enforcement and gun owners.

Predictably:

Some in law enforcement are applauding the decline, but caution that there are still plenty of illegal guns on the streets.

No, duh. How ya doin' on decreasing those? Making any progress?

Chief Crowley (we've met this authoritarian spokesthing before) weighs in:

"The average citizen who has a gun 24-7 I don’t believe has the experience, knowledge and training to know when and if they should use a firearm."

No, of course not, Chief. They're not "Only Ones," with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, like you.

This Day in History: August 6

Donald McDonald, leading a combined force of 60 Indians and Loyalists, surprises the Patriots as they work in the fields. Most run to Fort Clayton about five miles away but a German, John Christian Shell (Schell?), and his family make a stand in their blockhouse. McDonald is wounded, captured, and dies the next day, after his leg is amputated. Additionally, Shell and 11 attackers are also killed while another six of their number are wounded in the failed raid.

Guest Editorial: Credible Deterrence & the Logistics of Liberty

FOREWORD: Here's another gem from Mike Vanderboegh. I am pleased and privileged to showcase his important work here at WarOnGuns. Because the reach of this humble blog is so limited, I encourage you to pass links to Mr. Vanderboegh's work far and wide, if you agree with me that there is wisdom here we must heed.

Credible Deterrence & the Logistics of Liberty
by Mike Vanderboegh

"The test of a good strategy is that it achieves its object without the necessity for battle. As Sun Tzu put it: 'What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy; next best is to disrupt his alliances; next best is to attack his army.'"
--General Rupert Smith, British Army, Ret'd, in The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World, Alfred Knopf, NY, 2007, pp. 13


"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition."
-- Rudyard Kipling

What did the Founders intend with the Second Amendment? Liberals ignored, gunnies would all agree that their purpose was to codify the people's natural right to arms. As men who had been compelled to fight for independence by the British seizure of their arms, it was natural for them to ensure that the people of future generations be enabled to maintain the tools necessary to repel tyranny. But I think the Founders' purpose was not only to set up the preconditions to resist tyranny when it appeared, but also to deter it by providing future would-be tyrants with a credible deterrent that would discourage them from making the attempt to begin with. Others think so too. Here are two examples:

"The 'insurrectionist theory' label does not do justice to this aspect of the Second Amendment. True, the Second Amendment implicitly authorizes recourse to arms when less drastic means fail to attain or retain the proper ends of government identified in the Declaration. But the Amendment's greater value lies in the deterrent effect it would have, were it respected and enforced to the degree of its companion rights in the Bill of Rights. Although it implicitly authorizes rebellion-and explicitly provides the means of waging rebellion-the Amendment, if observed, should make rebellion less likely by making it less likely to be necessary. The Second Amendment should stand as a reminder to those who govern of the people's ultimate right to preserve or reestablish their rights by arms. One need not prophesy armed struggle by American citizens against their own government to propose that the citizenry's widespread ownership of firearms could safeguard liberty by deterring tyranny. The great value of the right is political, not military. This value lies not in the fact that the Amendment enables armed resistance, but that by enabling armed resistance it should make the conditions which would justify such resistance less likely to occur."

-- David Harmer, "Securing a free state: Why the Second Amendment Matters", Brigham Young University Law Review, 1998

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_199801/ai_n8765559/pg_1)

"Too many people wrongly assume that the purpose of revitalizing 'the Militia of the several States' (or, for that matter, of forming the kind of private citizens 'militia' that already exist in several States) is to fight new battles of Lexington and Concord. To the contrary: The goal must be, if at all possible, to deter usurpation and tyranny, so as to make actually fighting any battle here in America unnecessary. Deterrence is always the best defense. And preparedness makes deterrence credible."

- Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. "'The Militia Of The Several States' Guarantee The Right To Keep And Bear Arms", Aug 2005

(http://www.gunowners.org/opev06.htm)

Here we are then, back to Sun Tzu's dictum quoted at the outset. The exercise of the Second Amendment attacks the enemy-of-liberty's strategy at its source, between the tyrant's own ears, strangling the deadly idea of usurpation in its cradle before it can spring forth in murderous adulthood. Note well, I said "the exercise of the Second Amendment." The piece of paper alone guarantees nothing. We are not talking about law or morality or "emanations and penumbras" as one Supreme Court justice has divined. In the end, as with most other things in this world, American liberty is secured by the threat of naked force from the armed citizenry. Tyrants are nothing if not calculating, and the credible deterrence comes from the number of free men and free women opposed to their schemes, the character and number of the arms they hold, the level of proficiency they have achieved with those arms and their perceived will to use them. That, and one other thing, which we will get to in a minute.

But first, you must understand how tyrants think. Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, “The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?” Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. But you, gentle readers, have the argument that persuades dictators in your gun safes, closets and car trunks: millions upon millions of semi-automatic rifles of military utility-- those evil misnamed "assault rufles" that so frighten Chuck "the Schmuck" Shumer and the Brady Bunch. You have the power, ladies and gentlemen. The question is: Is the possession of rifles and the will to use them by themselves enough? No, it is not.

"Lieutenants study tactics, Generals study logistics." -- Military maxim.

"Then there is ammunition, for above all it is the bullet that kills. Skill is, of course, an essential element in dispatching that bullet effectively, but it is still the bullet that kills.... At the lower tactical levels of command one operates on the assumption that bullets are in continuous supply, but everyone is conscious that it is only an assumption. A rifleman can discharge all that he can carry in only a few minutes, and his commander must then either replace him or resupply him. It is therefore up to the commander to either strictly define or limit a soldier's task to the ammunition he carries, or else ensure that he is steadily replaced or resupplied. As you rise in command, you become increasingly concerned about the bullets rather than the rifles, and all other weapons, since they are the force being propelled and applied."

-- General Rupert Smith, British Army, Ret'd, in The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World, Alfred Knopf, NY, 2007, pp. 79-80

Or as General Walton Walker said in the early, desperate days of the Korean War, "We can win without food, we cannot win without ammunition." And ammunition supplies to the armed citizenry, as many of you have no doubt noticed, are becoming increasingly problematic. Hence this recent story:

Overseas wars causing ammo shortages
By UPI Staff
United Press International
April 9, 2007
SAN JOSE, Calif. (UPI) -- With wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, police departments in the United States are reporting a shortage of ammunition needed for firearms.

The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury-News reported that in addition to overseas conflicts, an unprecedented rise in the price of raw materials is also contributing to the shortage of ammunition. Also compounding the problem are longer delays in the shipment of ammo. Police across the United States said that ammunition shipments that once took 45 days are now taking as long as six months.

Many police departments are stepping up their ammo orders to hold them over during the long delays, the Mercury-News reported. "It has become a nightmare," said Sgt. Don Moore, San Jose police range master.

The U.S. military's increased use of firearms has been blamed for the shortage, but another factor, the Mercury-News reported, is the rise in the prices for ammo. Prices are said to have risen almost fourfold in the past 2 1/2 years, as demand for raw materials has surged in China and India.

(Source: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/april/0409_ammo_shortage.shtml)

Or this one, quoted in part, from the Fort Wayne, IN Journal Gazette:

Mon, Apr. 02, 2007
Bullet shortage tales spur police to load up
By Rebecca S. Green
The Journal Gazette

Some area law enforcement agencies have stocked up on ammunition in recent months after rumors of shortages and backorders caused by increased usage by military and law enforcement in the ongoing war on terror. Though Jeffersonville-based Kiesler Police Supply and Ammunition Co. sent a letter in February to law enforcement agencies in Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, alerting them to a continued ammunition shortage, many local agencies are not worried about running out of bullets.

“We wish to advise every police and sheriff department or agency in our territory (whether or not you are a customer of Kiesler’s) that deliveries of duty and practice ammunition are horribly backordered,” the letter read.. . . Increased usage by the military and law enforcement, as well as a number of foreign manufacturers ceasing U.S. sales, has contributed to the backlog, which is “the worst shortage Kiesler’s has seen in its 35 years of being in business,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Journal Gazette.

The letter to police goes on to indicate that .223-caliber rounds, used in assault rifles such as the M-16, are backlogged until the end of 2007 or early 2008 for both training rounds and ammunition carried on duty. The M-16 and its descendants, such as the M-16A1 and others, have been the primary infantry rifle used by the U.S. military for more than 40 years, and are also used by a number of other countries. Officials from Kiesler declined to comment for this story but on Friday referred calls to ATK, a weapons system company. No correlation between the increased demands for ammunition by law enforcement agencies, particularly training ammunition, should be drawn to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Brian Grace, spokesman for weapons manufacturer ATK.

The company manufacturers a large amount of ammunition used in the civilian, law enforcement and military sectors, doing an estimated $1.3 billion in business in its Ammunition Systems Group and produces about 1.5 billion rounds of small-caliber ammunition annually. ATK’s law enforcement ammunition, both training and duty rounds, is manufactured at plants in Minnesota, while small-caliber rounds for military use are made in Missouri, according to the company’s Web site. Grace said ATK has ramped up production of training ammunition, as well as increased capacity at its plants, making bullets “24/7.” He said the move was driven 99 percent by demand, rather than by a shortage in supply. . . .

. . . Huntington police officer Dale Osborn has served as the department’s firearms instructor for the past decade. He said the .45-caliber is the hardest round to obtain, the only backlog for his department’s supplier, Precision Cartridge Inc. in Hobart. Officials at Precision told Huntington that some suppliers were slower because of an increase in the military’s need for bullets, Osborn said. Slightly cheaper than the rounds carried in officers’ weapons, training rounds make up the bulk of police departments’ ammunition purchases, unlike the more complicated duty ammunition, which expands after contact with a target.

Sgt. Chad Hill, public information officer at the Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Department, said his department has had such a hard time obtaining the .223 rounds needed for the M-16A1 military surplus rifles carried by the deputies they have had to buy the ammunition from the Czech Republic. . . .He said the department has also had difficulty getting training ammunition for the duty-issued .45-caliber handguns and 9 mm handguns used by the department. While the department has been told to expect an easier time buying bullets by August, there is no guarantee, Hill said.

(Source: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/17014131.htm)

We civilian shooters have experienced this lately in the soaring rise in prices, but more troubling was the drying up of entire classes of ammo we have come to depend on, which one observer called The Great Ammo Drought of '06.

"SayUncle (a blogger) mentioned the rising cost of 7.62x39mm ammo, and offered an explanation. While the order of a bazillion rounds of 7.62 for the Afghanis might mean the supply of commercial Wolf/Barnaul ammo remains scarce, it doesn't account for the fact that it has been scarce for almost a year now, and that the scarcity of imported Russkie 7.62x39 is not necessarily directly linked to the price of its domestic alternatives. . . .Thing is, the domestic companies never loaded all that much 7.62x39, since most shooters simply burned up cheap imported Wolf by the case. Then Venezuela bought 100,000 AK's and the ammo to feed them last summer, and that dried up the Russian ammo flow like somebody turned off a tap; the domestic production never really caught up to the increasing demand. If this Afghan contract happens, it'll be another long drought until we see more cheap imported ammo. 'Til then it's going to be brass-cased domestic stuff or nothing, and with metals prices and fuel costs both up, ammo is more expensive than ever. I've seen two or three price hikes from every manufacturer and distributor since last October, with some brands and calibers going up by as much as 20%. Of course, this affects all ammo, not just 7.62x39mm. Combine that with the shortage of Winchester .22 ammo caused by Winchester moving rimfire production to a new facility in Arkansas, and you have a recipe for scarcity and high prices all across the ammunition landscape. Hoard you some ammo today. :)"

(Source: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-ammo-drought-of-06.html)

"Hoard you some ammo today." Not bad advice. For if we understand this vulnerability, so do our enemies. Says the Small Arms Survey, an adjunct of the United Nations' attempt to control the private use of arms world-wide (including your own, my dear friends):

"Ammunition: Weapons are only lethal when supplied with ammunition. The procurement of the correct type of ammunition for the available stockpiles of weapons is therefore a core concern for states, non-state armed groups, and individuals. While weapons are durable goods, which can be used for many years, ammunition is quickly depleted, and stocks must be replenished. As a consequence, intensive weapons use, such as in contexts of conflict or criminality, requires the maintenance of regular supply lines of ammunition. The oversight or disruption of such supply lines potentially represents an opportunity for controlling arms proliferation and limiting weapons misuse."

(Source: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/spotlight/ammunition/ammun.html)

Getting the picture now? You know Bill Clinton did this back in 1994, when the unintended consequences of the impending AWB boosted sales of Chinese semi-auto rifles and ammunition through the roof.

"In a sharp change of policy, President Bill Clinton declared Thursday that he was breaking the link between human rights and trade with China. The president's declaration came as he announced what U.S. officials had been signaling for days: that the White House believes China has made enough progress on human rights in the past year to retain most-favored-nation trade status, which means low U.S. tariffs on the $31 billion worth of goods it exports to the United States. . .

Nevertheless, Mr. Clinton took a series of steps designed to maintain at least some pressure on China: He ordered a ban on the importation of Chinese-made weapons and ammunition, but there was no explicit link to human rights. Cheap, Chinese infantry assault rifles are flooding the U.S. market and are increasingly being used in violent crimes. He announced his intention to enhance Radio Free Asia and Voice of America broadcasts into China and increase government support for private human rights groups."

(Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/05/27/mfn_1.php)

Though couched in terms of "human rights", Clinton's real purpose was clear enough, even to human rights activists. Said Human Rights Watch Executive Director Sidney Jones at the time:

"'By any yardstick, the human rights situation in China has deteriorated in the last year,' . . .noting more than 100 political and religious activists have been arrested, compared with three dozen prisoners released.. . the decision left Clinton's administration 'looking vacillating and hypocritical while the Chinese leadership, by contrast, has emerged as hard-nosed, uncompromising and victorious.' The ban on arms and ammunition imports from the Peoples Liberation Army is good for 'gun control, not human rights pressure,' Jones said. 'The only big winner from this decision is the Chinese government.'"

(Source: http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1994/5/27-4_2.html)

We frightened the Clintonistas with our purchases and so Bubba cut them off, though it was too late to stop the balance of power shifting more than a few degrees toward us, the armed citizenry. Millions of rifles and billions of rounds of ammunition flooded in and, as Clausewitz observed: "In military affairs, quantity has a quality all its own."

Of course the desire to disarm us by starving our ammunition supply is also alive and well in the proposals of liberal congresscritters over the past decade to require the banning of "armor piercing" and "cop killer" bullets and attempts to tax ammunition out of existence, or make it chemically "deactivated" after a certain period of time.

So our enemies know well how to mess with our power. The question is: What are we prepared to do about it?

Finding even semi-accurate "guess-timates" of how many rounds of ammunition are in private hands in this country is almost impossible. Anecdotal evidence suggests that after the Clintons departed the White House, many folks felt the pressure was off and have spent the past six years shooting up those billions of rounds of 7.62x39 at the range. Replacing them now is financially problematic for the average gunowner. Even absent continuing production diversions to hot wars like Iraq and Afghanistan (and potential troublemakers like Venezuela), the Chinese economy has driven up prices on all base metals and with them, the cost of the finished product that makes your rifles go "bang." The only "cheap" ammo (circa 12 cents per) to be had these days is Russian and Bulgarian military production 7N6 5.45x39. This is why the semi-auto AK-74 has acheived new significance in your gun shop's line of profitable guns to stock. When that 5.45 milsurp is exhausted, the price on 5.45 will also rise.

And this is absent any significant push in the market. Should the Clintons return to the White House, or there's another LA riot or Katrina disaster, the rush will be on and prices that are thought to be high now will be looked upon with fond nostalgia. Unless somebody nukes China, the market forces are going to continue to squeeze us, cutting down on our range time (also important to maintain credible deterrence) and threatening to make our rifles nothing more than expensive clubs.

So I guess I've told you all of this, in part at least, as an investment tip. Buy now. Buy a LOT. Start stocking up on everything from finished rounds to reloading equipment and components. It is the only way to maintain credible deterrence with our political enemies who seek to disarm us on the quiet. We all must turn our attention to the logistics of liberty, lest we lose the deterrence and are forced to fight.

And one other thing. We have always said amongst ourselves that any attempt at universal gun confiscation would be a causus belli-- the trip wire to overthrow the gun-grabbers and drive them from power. We said as much publicly, if indirectly, when we purchased those millions of rifles in the early 90s. It is time to get the message across that attacking the armed citizenry by indirect disarmament in the taxing or banning of ammunition is also a trip wire that potential tyrants need to be mindful of lest we make them a footnote to history.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776ATaol.com

We're the Only Ones Lying and Thuggish Enough

Six former or current Milwaukee police officers were charged Thursday in the beating of Frank Jude Jr. - the latest development in the largest prosecution of police here in some 40 years.

The charges bring to eight the number of officers now accused in the beating outside a drunken off-duty police party in Bay View two years ago. Of those, three have agreed to plead guilty...

Former officer Joseph Stromei was charged with and agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice after he admitted he had been lying to investigators until a week ago...

Boyle was surprised, however, by the number of officers who now admit they lied.

"The feds have to get around this," Boyle said. "There is a lot of lying under oath that appears to have gone on."

But...but...but I thought "The Only Ones" were...uhh...more trustworthy then ordinary people like you and me.

[Thanks to K- Romulus]

Questions and Answers VI

[Parts I, II, III, IV and V]

This is the last post directly responsive to Mr. Licht's questions, observations and challenges. But it will by no means be the end of this discussion, which I intend to begin addressing next week, with further explorations into what hasn't worked, what has, and what may.

When he originally wrote to me, I knew that to give him thoughtful responses would take much more time than I could spare in a one-on-one, and if I was going to put the time into a reply that was worth the effort, it needed to be done in this open forum. I've actually been meaning to address the questions he raised for a while now, so Mr. Licht's timely email provided both a catalyst and a framework to begin that effort.

Here's the balance of his initial query:

I know you are a fan of "the prisoner". We ARE living in the village. More so all the time and on an accelerating path. But you and I, and a few pockets here and there are "not prisoners, we are free men! Or by our actions, are we?

What do you think?

I am asking your personal opinion for my own interest and direction and I will NOT republish your response.

He touched on an affectation of mine, but an inspiration, nonetheless. If you're unfamiliar with "The Prisoner," it was a TV series from the 60's about a secret agent who quit in anger from his agency. He is kidnapped and awakens in a fantastic locale known as "the Village," a gilded cage where his captors are constantly subjecting him to surveillance and subterfuge in a quest for "information."

The thing is, he doesn't know "whose side" his inquisitors are on--are they the foreign enemy, pumping him for state secrets, or is it his own government, that is, his domestic enemy, trying to determine what he knows and what he may have disclosed?

As in star Patrick McGoohan's previous series, "Secret Agent," they've given him a number and taken away his name, referring to the captive protagonist as "Number Six."

But the thing about Number Six, and what confounds his tormenters, is no matter what they throw at him, he never gives up. Each episode, he defies and rebels and attempts to escape, always seeking creative ways out of his trap, relying on himself, his intellect, his resourcefulness and daring to reclaim his liberty.

And each episode he is thwarted, betrayed, recaptured. But he never allows himself to be broken. When one idea fails him, he comes up with another, commits himself to it, and gives it his all. For the sake of his freedom.

That strikes me as a pretty fine ideal to strive for.

There is a way out of the box. Stick around and we can try to find it.

In the coming weeks we can look at lawsuits and gun groups and militias. We'll look at politics and education. We'll confront apathy and lack of resources and critical mass.

Just as I tied the responses together under "Questions and Answers," I'll come up with a unifying title for the next leg of the series--perhaps "Escaping the Village."

And as they say there on parting, "Be seeing you."

Welsh Gun Control Failure Prompts Calls for More of Same

A campaign is being launched aimed at reducing gun crime in Wales.

The number of firearm offences in north Wales was almost six times higher in 2004-2005 than the previous year, according to Home Office figures.

In south Wales, gun offences have more than doubled...

As part of the anti-gun campaign, [Crimestoppers Wales] will be distributing posters and leaflets across Wales.

That UK citizen disarmament certainly is working well. I'm sure posters and leaflets will solve their violent crime problems once and for all.