I’ve been amused by the recent media reaction to citizens openly carrying firearms in states that still respect our constitutional right to do so.  The vast majority of media folks are flaming liberals, so it’s really no surprise.  Still, it’s odd that anyone in America would recoil from the mere presence of guns.  I am probably in the minority when it comes to my view of the Second Amendment because I see it much more broadly than the Supreme Court recently indicated in District of Columbia v. Heller, a decision handed down last summer (full text HERE).  In that landmark case, the Court said:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it

connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

That essentially settles the basic argument for now.  There are, however, many other ancillary arguments that remain unsettled.  The left in America continually seeks to limit gun rights whatever the Supreme Court rules.  As with the rest of our Constitution, we need to return to original intent to insure the freedoms inherent in our republic.

I am an unrepentant believer in the open carry of firearms.  Any citizen who has not been convicted of a violent felony and is mentally stable should have the right to openly carry a weapon without permission from local law enforcement.  The Second Amendment does not mandate prior permission from the government.  Varying state laws in some cases severely restrict that right.  Other states have laws in place that effectively negate open carry without expressly doing so.  My state of Ohio, for example, permits open carry except in vehicles.  I suppose that’s fine if one walks everywhere, but otherwise it is a loophole that contravenes the original law itself.  We as American citizens have the right of self defense, and we should be able to exercise that right openly and without fear of harassment from police.  The only reasonable restriction on open carry is banning them in establishments that serve alcohol or in government buildings, for obvious reasons.  Many believe that schools and churches should also be included, but far too often we’ve seen citizens attacked in those places without recourse.  Homicidal maniacs pick these places to launch their attacks because they know that no one will be armed.  How many fewer people would have died if someone present had been armed and ready to end such an attack?  An armed society would see far less crime, especially armed robberies and sexual assaults.  Despite liberal beliefs to the contrary, guns do not cause crime and in fact in many cases would prevent it. 

I completely and utterly reject the concept of concealed carry permits.  Concealed carry is nothing less than concealed registration.  It is merely another way for the government to compile lists of gun owners, another idea that clearly violates our Constitution.  As mentioned above, Ohio requires a concealed carry permit to have a loaded weapon in a vehicle.  This is a sneaky legal maneuver that makes open carry impractical.  The Second Amendment does not contain the phrase “with licensing and registration”.  Why should any citizen need the permission of the local sheriff to exercise a right guaranteed under the federal constitution?  It strikes me as patently absurd and thoroughly unconstitutional.  Ohio requires a training course for the concealed carry permit.  Pardon me, Mr. Policeman, but as an eight year veteran of the United States Army, I do not need any further training and dare to say that I am far more proficient and far more accurate in the use of firearms than most members of law enforcement.  I am reminded of the February 19, 1997, shootout between the two Kehoe brothers and Wilmington, Ohio, police officers (see video below).  Numerous rounds were fired at a range of less than ten feet and no one was hit.  Less glaring examples occur on a regular basis.  Obviously there are those who may feel the need for training, but it should not be required for military veterans.  Concealed carry permits are registration in disguise and clearly not within the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Prior to the DC v. Heller ruling, the continual march towards restricting individual gun rights had been steadily progressing.  Each year we see further efforts to eviscerate Second Amendment rights by imposing more and more restrictions.  The groups and individuals that support these measures are simply not comfortable with a basic American right.  Many of them do believe that guns cause crimes, which is like saying flies cause garbage or that spoons make you fat.  A gun is merely a tool.  It is the intent of the user that matters.  I have owned firearms for my entire adult life.  I have never had to brandish one, much less use it, and I hope I never do.  Should the day come, however, when my life or the safety of my family is in jeopardy, I certainly will want a gun for defense.  Placing Draconian restrictions on gun ownership only makes the outlaw more powerful.  Law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right of self defense, and that certainly cannot be accomplished with a stick.  Whatever controls are enacted, the criminals will not adhere to them.  Those who follow them are placed at risk.

It was strange to hear the recent reaction from the media to recent occurrences where citizens legally carried firearms to public protests.  One would have thought these individuals were firing rounds into the air or perhaps were armed with nuclear missiles.  The liberals doing the reporting displayed their unfamiliarity with firearms especially when attempting to describe the weapons themselves.  Apparently they have not been around guns and are extremely uncomfortable in their presence.  To their way of thinking, an armed citizen simply must be up to no good and is dangerous.  They see an implied threat in the exercising of a guaranteed right.  The unfortunate part is that their reactions sensationalize the story and substantiate a wholly unnecessary attitude.  It’s really quite silly and a bit cowardly to my eyes.

Individual gun ownership has been an essential freedom in America since its inception.  Our Founders saw it as important enough to be clearly included in the Bill of Rights.  Those who are opposed are craven and would subject the citizenry to attack without defense.  In closing, I’ll turn it over to three great Americans:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."  Thomas Jefferson

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference . . ." - George Washington

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!"  – President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.

Once again today we have proof positive that the media is intriguingly selective about which stories it features.  Today’s lead story was President Obama’s health care “town hall” conducted in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  The meeting was a staged and planned event, packed with Obama supporters who already are in favor of the health care bill being considered by Congress.  It played more like a campaign event than a discussion, and at one point Mr. Obama even had to seek out more questioners.  This sort of stagecraft has become Obama’s trademark.  Rarely does he face tough questions from either citizens or the media, and even more rarely without a teleprompter.  What the media missed today is truly frightening and is the nightmare scenario for our strategic goals in Pakistan and thus Afghanistan.

A feature published in the Times of India reports that Pakistani nuclear installations have already been attacked three times by Islamic militants.  You can see the article HERE.  The gist of the report is this:

“The incidents, tracked by Shaun Gregory, a professor at Bradford University in UK, include an attack on the nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha on November 1, 2007, an attack on Pakistan's nuclear airbase at Kamra by a suicide bomber on December 10, 2007, and perhaps most significantly the August 20, 2008 attack when Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blew up several entry points to one of the armament complexes at the Wah cantonment, considered one of Pakistan's main nuclear weapons assembly.”

That is indeed an alarming report.  It has to be considered the worst possible scenario for the situation on the ground in Pakistan.  The President must consider it a grave threat both to our forces on the ground in the region and to the homeland.  Of all situations that currently exist, it is the one most likely to result in a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of Al Qaeda.  Pakistan has made recent gains against militants on its territory, but this is another animal entirely.

The administration has been extremely negligent in handling the situation in Pakistan.  Less than a month ago, July 20^th, we were assured by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Pakistan’s nuclear command and control were “well managed”.  Now that turns out to be somewhat of an overstatement to put it mildly.  Either the administration was unaware of the attacks, a grossly negligent position, or kept them secret, in which case absolutely no action has been taken.    Congress left for summer recess without approving further aid for the Pakis despite Obama’s insistence that he would be reaching out to the Muslim world with more economic assistance.  It seems his health care plan is more important than loose nuclear weapons.  Of course, we won’t need as big a health care program if millions of Americans are dead as the result of a nuclear weapon being detonated here at home.  I personally warned of the circumstances involving Paki nukes on December 27, 2007, when I wrote:

“The idea of a modern nuclear arsenal complete with delivery vehicles in the hands of Al Qaeda is too apocalyptic to ignore….. Musharraf is all we have in Pakistan.  He may be a military dictator, but the alternative is even less acceptable.  And since our primary concern is the nuclear arsenal, we really have no choice but to back him for now.”

Politicians on both sides of the aisle ignored those concerns, helped to depose Musharraf, and that ignorance is now coming home to roost.  Unfortunately for us, the roost may be a nuclear missile silo.

The problems with Paki nukes are abundant.  Pakistan originally deployed their nuclear weapons facilities in places far from the border with India to avoid them being taken in a sudden armored thrust.  The result now is that these facilities are mostly in the heart of areas thick with Taliban.  Paki nuclear security is based on a U.S. model:

 “a) physical security;

   b) personnel reliability programs;

  c) technical and procedural safeguards; and

  d) deception and secrecy.”

That’s all well and good, but I’m not convinced, and neither should the President be comfortable.  All it takes is one security breach to put the world’s most dangerous weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda.  While Obama peddles his health care initiative, a measure completely outside the scope of the federal government, his primary role as Commander In Chief goes unattended.

The President should take immediate action to further secure Pakistani nuclear weapons and facilities.  Relying on the Pakis to do it is unacceptable.  The security of those weapons immediately and directly impacts American national defense.  Mr. Obama should take immediate and concrete measures to further bolster the security measures already in place.  Deploying additional American military personnel should be considered in consultation with the leadership of Pakistan.  If the Pakis resist, Mr. Obama must fulfill his role as CINC and seize them lock, stock, and barrel if necessary.  The future security of our troops and civil population demand no less.  His administration is quickly becoming the whistle past the graveyard gang.  I would hope the Pentagon will make the case for action to him if he does not see it clearly.   Once a nuclear weapon is taken by Islamic militants, the horrific multitude of possibilities will make his negligence and inattention a truly fatal mistake.

PALIN DIVORCE RUMORS:  Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had to shoot down rumors of divorce this weekend.  This is simply more proof of the liberal media’s efforts to torpedo her future, and it will fail like all the rest.  They have attacked her appearance, her children, and now her marriage.  At long last, media, have you no decency?  It seems there is no end to their campaign of smear and denigration.  Rather than cast aspersions on Palin, it tells us more about the liberals and how much they want to discredit her.  They are desperate to belittle her rising star and have no qualms about using whatever means are at their disposal.

NERVY BRITS:  Several new public opinion polls came out in Britain this past week suggesting British support for the war in Afghanistan is waning.  No surprise, given the parliamentary “foreign affairs select committee” spending their time criticizing nearly every part of the war.  The committee even had the audacity to question whether or not the Taliban represent a threat to western security.  Now some are suggesting we should talk to the Taliban (see below).  That sort of forgetfulness makes one wonder if we really do have any reliable allies anywhere in the world.  Afghanistan was supposed to be the war for which everyone was on board for the long haul.  Now even the Brits, who I used to consider the least likely to jump ship when the going gets tough, are carping and complaining.  It also makes one fear for the long term future of democratic society.  Imagine the reaction from the Brits later this month when Afghanistan NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal tells President Obama and the rest of the alliance that a further troop surge will be necessary.  NATO troop numbers in Afghanistan are deceptive, with most forces deployed around Kabul or in the north, far away from actual combat.  Check out the map here and see for yourself.  A leaked memo sent to all British Army units revealed in the media today suggests the Brits are struggling with soldiers that are obese or out of shape.  That follows a similar German report several months ago that also bemoaned the amount of beer the Germans are consuming.

NATO will become an essentially useless alliance if it cannot fulfill its primary credo that an attack against one is an attack against all.  The alliance has shown in Afghanistan that it may be headed that direction.  If we cannot count on allied support in fighting Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, what exactly is the point of continuing to support the alliance?  It may be trendy to add new eastern European nations, but why bother if the alliance is hollow?  Members have drug their feet in supporting operations in Afghanistan since the onset of the conflict.  The statements of support following September 11^th now ring somewhat hollow in
light of their reluctance to deploy significant numbers of combat troops in areas where they might actually be helpful.  It’s time for our NATO allies to stop the complaining and get in the fight or risk going the way of the United Nations.

NEGOTIATE WITH THE TALIBAN ?:  Chatter about trying to talk with the Taliban has increased in recent weeks, especially from the Brits.  There is a huge difference between flipping some local Taliban and actually engaging Taliban leadership.  The Taliban had their chance to govern, and it was a nightmare for the Afghan people and for the rest of the world.  They cannot be folded into the Afghan government.   Even more outrageous was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s support for such a traitorous idea while at a joint appearance last Wednesday with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.  Have they both gone mad?  Miliband suggested such an approach last Monday in a speech at NATO headquarters, further bringing the alliance’s worth into question. 

The only way the Taliban should be “engaged” is with automatic weapons.

HOW LONG, ISRAEL ?:  Israel will not wait forever to take action against Iran’s nuclear program.  While the Obama administration talks sanctions and continues attempts to negotiate, the Iranians continue their threats against Israel and their march toward deliverable nuclear weapons.  President Obama is attempting the same, tired old strategy of negotiating and promising moot sanctions that hasn’t worked for the last six years.  It’s difficult to see what he thinks can be gained.  He refused to offer any support to the demonstrators in Iran, perhaps in fear of damaging his efforts.  The Obama administration has consistently delivered a mixed message on Iran, simultaneously declaring a fully nuclear Iran “unacceptable” while also vowing to protect the rest of the region should Iran achieve a functional nuclear weapon.  Which is it, Mr. President?

It is clear Israel will not wait forever, nor should they be expected to do so.  Iran has openly and directly threatened their existence.  After SECDEF Gates’ recent visit, rumors flew that the U.S. had asked Israel to wait at least eight more weeks.  Whether those rumors are true or not, the clock is clearly ticking, and no doubt that ticking is heard loudest in Tel Aviv.  Mr. Obama should set a deadline for negotiations to begin in earnest.  If the Iranians ignore the deadline, he should begin planning in earnest for a military strike that while obviously dangerous, may be the least risky option of all.

HOSTAGE SITUATIONS:  The Obama administration now has two hostage situations to deal with instead of just one.  For nearly five months, North Korea has been holding two American female journalists accused of spying.  Now Iran is reportedly holding three Americans taken from a poorly marked area of the Iran-Iraq border.  Failing to act on either situation reflects very poorly on Mr. Obama and does nothing but encourage these two rogue nations to act out even more.  Obama’s campaign promised a new era in U.S. foreign policy that would bring quicker resolution to any crisis.  So far that has not been the case.