Shortly after Barack Obama’s coronation as exalted leader, gun and ammunition sales in the United States skyrocketed.  The increase was so stupendous, more than one prominent magazine and quite a number of newspapers proclaimed him “Gun Salesman of the Year” for 2009.

Following the tragic shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Glock pistol sales surged, and in Tucson, by more than sixty percent.

Amazingly, to insure such a shooting never happens again, politicians will now “do something”.  On the chopping block?  High capacity magazines.

In California, which has 90 billion dollars of debt and owes 500 billion dollars in unfunded pension obligations (evidence of our politician’s good decision making skills), “gun” legislation became so onerous, all manufacturers of what Dianne Feinstein called “Saturday Night Specials” are now out of business or doing business in some other state.  Once home to a dozen pistol makers, California now has only one. 

Today, no members of Congress can be shot by “junk guns” presently made in California, but they can still get shot.

In California the legal limit for magazine capacity without a special permit is ten.  Following the Giffords’ shooting, the Obama administration wants to institute these rules throughout the country. 

Advice to President:  “When copying experimental legislation from states, pick states that have demonstrated an ability to make good decisions, not bad ones—maybe try Texas or Nebraska next time.”

Our president is adopting the position of genius legislators in Sacramento, “It’s O.K. for criminals to kill ten people, drop the magazine, insert a new one, and kill ten more, but it’s not O.K. to kill 14 in a row without a magazine change.”

Why not adopt the gun control laws of Chicago and Washington D.C. Mr. President—low crime there?!? 

Just about anyone possessing and IQ hovering right around ninety can grasp the idea that this type of legislation is not about “making sure this doesn’t happen again”, and all about totalitarian bureaucrats exerting their power over the masses with capricious and arbitrary rules; yet you can still get yourself in quite a spirited debate proclaiming to your favorite Obama supporter, “Guns don’t kill people, people do”.

If you find yourself in such a quandary, ask your adversaries how well gun control laws worked in “gun free zones” with:

Charles Whitman  1966

Anthony Barbaro  1974 

Edward Charles Allaway  1976 

Brenda Ann Spencer  1979 

Jason Rocha  1982 

David F. Lawler  1983 

Laurie Dann  1988

Patrick Purdy, Jason Harless, Jayson McCoy  1989 

Gang Lu  1991

Eric Houston, Wayne Lo  1992 

Gary Scott Pennington  1993 

Keith A. Ledeger  1994

Anthony Sincino, James Ellison Rouse  1995 

Barry Dale Loukaitis, Frederick Martin Davidson, Jillian Robbins  1996 

Evan E. Ramsey, Luke Woodham, Michael Carneal  1997 

Mitchell Johnson, Andrew Golden, Andrew Jerome Wurst, Kipland Philip Kinkel  1998

Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Thomas Solomon  1999

Dedrick Owens  2000

Charles Andrew Williams, Jason Hoffman  2001

Peter Odighizuwa  2002

Steven R. Williams, James Tate, James Sheets, Biswanath Halder  2003

Jon Romano  2004

Jeffrey James Weise, Kenneth Bartley Jr.  2005

James Scott Newman, Duane Roger Morrison, Eric Hainstock, Charles Carl Roberts IV  2006

David Turner, Loyer D. Braden, Asa H. Coon, Seung-Hui Cho  2007

Latina Williams, Brandon McInerney, Steven Kazmierczak, Jamar Siler, Martrevis Norman  2008

Yousuf Mohammad Aziz, Germaine B. Benjamin, Dimaryea J. McGhee, Jacori W. Bender  2009

Amy Bishop, Bruco Eastwood, Colton Tooley  2010

Robert Butler Jr., Jared Loughner  2011

(The preceding list is only partial)

In Australia, after all guns were confiscated by the government, violent crime went up. 

In Britain, after the government disarmed its citizens, violent crime went up.

In China, where a totalitarian regime closely controls all aspects of arms, the government kills or imprisons citizens at will.

In 1966 when Charles Whitman killed 16 people with various rifles from his perch upon the University of Austin’s central tower, the “lunatic shooter” was an unknown phenomenon in the United States.  Prior to this event, there were very few gun crimes, and very little gun control.  As gun control legislation, envisaged to curtail these events, has increased, so has the frequency of these horrible events.  Clearly, gun control has made no impact on this activity.

The group that thinks people ought not to have arms is the same group that thinks people ought not to be allowed to pray to God in public places either.  I wonder if the degeneration of our culture away from the foundational Christian doctrine that has embodied America toward a secular atheistic society might have something to do with the increase and prevalence of this kind of crime?

Call me crazy.   

The simple fact of the matter is, Americans are not “Gun Nuts”, we are “Freedom Nuts”.  We appreciate our right to arms not because of a great perceived amount of danger we endure by threats from crazy neighbors or criminals, but the large amount of danger we fear from a government that believes it should have the power to decide whether or not we should have the right to defend ourselves from a possible perceived amount of danger from crazy neighbors or criminals. 

Ultimately, crazy neighbors and criminals are a small threat to personal security and tyrannical government is a big one.

Madison and Jefferson proclaimed that this was so.

Mao, Hitler, and Stalin, proved that Madison and Jefferson were correct.