"In a free society the State does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs."

     This was not said by a founder of this country it was said by Walter Lippman a contemporary commentator and author who would not be considered a friend of gun ownership, but he said it well.

     We have in place, and have had, the means to determine whether or not a person has broken the contract of civilization. It was written 200 plus years ago, codified, and is still valid although it has been distorted with judicial activism, and backed by a liberal press, to the point that some no longer know what is law and what is not. With all the obsfurcation that is presented in courts of law, and in the mainstream press, it is hard to decide...Not!

     Not for me...I know what the Founders meant and said.

     Regardless of the pap that the 'mainstream' press feed the rest of the populace, I know. It is not because I am more intelligent it is because I am more dedicated to the Constitution and the principle of upholding the Constitution. It is because I am dedicated to the principle "that all men are created equal," and the principle of self defense.

     Our Founder's understood that for a people to exercise liberty they had to first defend themselves and then their country, the two are inextricable.

      When our country was first colonized there were two very important things that these pioneer's brought with them, seed and firearm's; after all what good is your crop if someone wishes to destroy it or steal it. The basic fundamental thought was that of survival. First of life and then of the sustenance that maintains life, it took a firearm to defend both...then and now.

     What is the difference from then and today? Then it was the British and Indians, today it is felons. Today we must defend our lives even more assiduously then before because now the people willing to take your life and goods are harder to identify. The British wore uniforms the Indians wore feathers, and now some of the felons wear suits. Some are in government.

     Today we are under attack by the most viscous people that the world could imagine. Fourteen year old "children" make their "bones" by the random killing of a stranger, so much the better if that person has cash or is a woman. With a woman they feel that there are side "benefit's" before they kill her.

     Banning the private ownership of firearm's seems to be the only solution that our legislator's can come up with. The fact that no gun control law has ever worked to stop the felon makes no difference to them. It is fact that no jurisdiction that has imposed gun ban's has lowered the crime rate, the opposite has occurred. When Kennesaw, Georgia passed an ordinance that all household's must have a firearm in the home the crime rate went to a statistical zero, while the crime rate in surrounding town's went up.

     The fundamental right to defend oneself, family, and property is rooted in the Constitution and the Bible: "If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." [Exodus 22:2-3] , two magnificent documents.

     What of natural law?... "There exists a law not written down anywhere but inborn in our heart's; a law that comes to us not by training or custom or reading but from nature itself...that if our lives are endangered, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right." Cicero

     Now, in most parts of this country, we are not equal because we are restricted in the ownership of firearms and felons are not. You may say that there are laws in place that restrict them from firearm ownership, and that is true, but remember they are felons...they don't obey the law... abiding citizen's do, and then become victims.

     It is very interesting that when a person has ready access to a firearm the felon is usually put to flight, detained for the police, incapacitated, or killed. Contrary to mainstream press, mostly on the east and left coast, that say it is better to submit to crime than to fight it, Professor Gary Kleck proved that notion wrong.

     Initially when Professor Kleck of the University of Florida, a criminologist, studied crime and the deployment of hand gun's, he approached the issue with an anti gun stance. After exhaustive studies he came to the conclusion that more than 600,000 incidents of crime were either ameliorated or stopped when a hand gun was deployed. Notice I said deployed. More times than not the hand gun was not fired, just shown. He did not address rifles or shotguns in his study. If you throw long guns into the mix the figure could very well be 1,000,000 or more.

     There are many ways that we can curb crime, but the best way is to have law abiding, responsible, and trained civilians armed. It worked when we had to "tame" this country...it will work now. Why do legislators wish to disarm us, I do not know...maybe it was best said by James Madison in the Federalist Papers #46; "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the American people possess over the people of almost every other nation...Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

     The antidote to bloody crime, says President Clinton is to ban imitation "assault weapons." Before the Congress betrayed this country and passed that law, the 17 times indicted and potential felon, Dan Rostenkowski said: "If this bill fails, we are no longer a Democracy. Eighty percent of the people want it."... With all due respect Mr. Rostenkowski, we have never been a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic that, in theory, prevents 80% of that population from screwing up the country.

      Philosopher John Stuart Mill called it the "tyranny of the majority."

     Albert Gallatin [NY Historical Society, October 7, 1789] further said: "The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."