This Could Help Car and Truck Sales

Rockefeller, Byrd must vote NO on Anti-Gun Sotomayor

Sotomayor had this to say on gun rights, "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt." She said nothing on her stance in that statement. Understanding how important gun rights are to some and supporting the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution are two different things. Having friends that hunt or family that are members of the NRA, doesn’t mean she shares those opinions. That was a total dodge of the question. You only dodge the question when you do not want to reveal your true feelings.

When Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked about gun rights, Sotomayor said, "I can't answer...because I can't look at it in the abstract.” There is nothing abstract about the 2^nd Amendment. It is quite clear, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Coburn went on and pressed Sotomayor asking if a person had a fundamental right to self defense. Sotomayor’s reply should have been, “Yes!” It was not, she stated, "What we do is different than the conversations citizens have about what they want the law to do. It's not that we make a broad policy choice and say this is what we want."

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson summed up his feelings in letter to Peter Minor, July 20, 1822 when he wrote, “I presume he is a gun-man, as I am sure he ought to be, and every American who wishes to protect his farm from the ravages of quadrupeds & his country from those of biped invaders. I am a great friend to the manly and healthy exercises of the gun.” The Founding Fathers were quite clear the right to defend ones self and ones nation were to be in the hands of the people. Sotomayor’s position does not reflect that of the majority of the nation, the people of West Virginia or that of the Founding Fathers. Our Senators in Washington should vote NO on her appointment to the US Supreme Court and we must ask them to vote NO. The number for the Senate switch board is 202-225-3121.

If Slasher Flims were Pro-Second Amendment

There was ammo on these shelves

There was ammo on these shelves
Shared via AddThis

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Reports from across the country confirm that gun owners seeking to stock up on ammunition are facing the same list of problems: shortages, back orders, elevated prices and a long line of people staring at empty shelves where boxes of bullets used to be.

"Just about everywhere I've been, it's sold out," Darren Lauzon told KMGH-TV in Denver after he failed to find ammunition for his new .45 pistol. "Wal-Mart, Sportsman's, wherever."

"Folks have been experiencing shortages all over the country," a spokesman for the National Rifle Association told the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat in California. "Since the election there has been a great increase in firearms sales as well. Background checks are up, enrollment in training and safety classes is up, concealed weapons permits are up, gun sales are up – and ammo manufacturers can't keep up with demand."

Gun shops and retailers agree: the press for ammunition is emptying their shelves quicker than the manufacturers can restock them.

"We're probably selling ammunition right now at a 200 percent increase over normal sales," said Richard Taylor, manager at the Firing Line in Aurora, Colo.

"We've probably got over 4,000 cases of ammunition on back order currently. But we just don't know when we're going to receive that," Taylor told KMGH. "Y2K was just like a little blip on the radar screen compared to this. I mean, it's just phenomenal."

A Wal-Mart salesman told Ross Kaminsky of Human Events, "We used to get shipments almost every day. Now we only know we'll have it when we see it. I get at least a half-dozen calls a day asking for ammunition, especially for handguns, and when it arrives, the customers buy everything."

The shortages are creating multiple complications for both gun owners and sellers.

KSNW-TV in Wichita reports the cost of ammunition in many Kansas stores has risen between $5 to $15 more per box over the last six months, and even still, many retailers are limiting the amount of ammunition customers can buy.

"It is a bad problem," Bill Vinduska with Bullseye Firearms told the station, "because we really would rather be able to supply our customers their needs; and not being able to do that is really a problem."

"When you're turning down two or three thousand, four thousand dollars a day in sales because you just can't get the product, that's significant," said Burnie Stokes from Panhandle Gunslingers to KFDA-TV in Amarillo, Texas.

Jere Jordan, general manager Midsouth Shooters Supply in Clarksville, Tenn., a company that specializes in mail-order sales of ammunition and reloading supplies, told the Associated Press that his company has sold out of ammunition commonly used in semiautomatic pistols and popular military rifles.

And even though Midsouth is taking orders for supplies used by hobbyists to handload cartridges, Jordan has no idea when they'll be filled.

"The wait? We're not even guessing on the wait anymore," Jordan said. "It's exceeding 60 days."

Who's to blame for shortages?

According to Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade organization representing both manufacturers and retailers, the shortages pinching store owners aren't the fault of their suppliers.

"We have heard from all across the country that there is a tremendous shortage of ammunition," Keane told the AP. "We've heard this from the manufacturers, that their customers are calling them trying to get supplies for inventory, and that the manufacturers are going full-bore, pardon the pun."

The shortages, for the most part, stem from a widespread surge in customer demand for ammunition, a surge many link to the election of Barack Obama and the belief, perpetuated in part by the National Rifle Association, that the new president favors limiting the right to bear arms codified in the Second Amendment.

"Sen. Obama's statements and support for restricting access to firearms, raising taxes on guns and ammunition and voting against the use of firearms for self-defense in the home are a matter of public record," declares Chris W. Cox, chairman of the NRA's Political Victory Fund. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history."

"After the election," Midsouth's Jordan told the AP, "where you have a change of parties to a more liberal side, I would say I guess the conservatives want to protect what they feel might be taken away from them, either through a tax, or an all-out ban."

"Everybody's just worried about the new government coming in and trying to ban guns and make everything more difficult to obtain," NRA member Kevin Bishop told KMGH. "Well, the way [Obama] has been acting, there may be a little truth to the rumor."

Rich Wyatt, owner of a firearms shop and training facility outside of Denver, told Human Events' Kaminsky that even "old ladies and young people and liberals" have been buying ammunition from him.

Wyatt's position seems to be that the new president sparked the ammunition buying frenzy with careless words from the campaign trail, such as when he said small town folks in Pennsylvania "cling to guns or religion" during hard economic times.

"Barack Obama is right about one thing," Wyatt said. "We are clinging to God and our guns, and I defy him to try to take either one from us."

Carbine Williams

Oh the magic of TiVo.

A month ago I recorded on TMC an obscure film called Carbine Williams. This movie, said Robert Osborne, did not appeal to moviegoers but may have been Jimmy Stewart's best performance. It tells the story of David Marshall "Marsh" Williams of North Carolina. Williams was an impatient young man with an aptitude for machinery. Unfortunately he put that talent to work building stills during Prohibition. During a federal raid a firefight broke out, an agent was killed, and the court sentenced Williams to thirty years in state prison.

While in prison, Williams bucked the system and earned a trip to the chain gang. After serving out his punishment he went to a prison farm where he started working in the machine shop. While there, he secretly constructed a new kind of gun. When the warden discovered the weapon, he was so amazed at the advances made that he approved of a demonstration. Present was a representative of Winchester. Because it worked, Williams earned a pardon and a job with that firm. The gun's reduced weight and superior firing capability made it the "grandfather" of the M1 used by soldiers in World War II.

The hero of the film was a gun maker, described as a "rugged individualist." His hard work and persistence paid off for him and also helped our soldiers better combat our most dangerous enemies.

This kind of movie is why I would much rather watch TMC than pay to see a recently made film. American values dominate this movie, values that left leaning liberals would rather we forget.

You're most likely part of the Militia

This is the current US Law without commentary.

Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So the Terrorists Won After All

Just after 9/11, it was bandied about that if we allowed substantial changes to our national character as a result of crisis, it meant the terrorists were winning. Who ever would have thought we'd see the following:

The government is no longer our obedient servant. Now General Motors is the government's obedient servant.

Those who interpreted the law so that we could compete on the front lines of terrorism now possibly face worse treatment than all but one of the Confederate States of America military and political officials who actually took arms against the United States. They do not get a thank you for preventing additional attacks, they get threatened with prosecution.

Law abiding gun owners are told that the freedoms they believe in somehow give Mexican drug lords 90% of their guns. I am not sure how they got all those Russian, Chinese, and Czech arms from American dealers.

We'd rather form government labor battalions than reduce taxes so that employers can hire more people.

The British head of government and head of state are treated with crass disrespect while anti-American dictators get the "best buddy" treatment.

We regard captured terrorists as civilians and returning solider-heroes as terrorists.

Republicans are, for the most part, also mostly terrorists for standing behind our Founding ideals.

This is a government that plays hardball with corporations, but swoons with affection towards the brutal Hugo Chavez. The world is turned upside down. A few years ago we were prosperous and strong, now we mollycoddle enemies and trample the free market.

Two years cannot go past soon enough. We need to get our America back.

I am now the liberals target

Many of you watched my appearance in a piece on "Hannity's America" on Fox News last Thursday night. The response has all been positive, but with any political discussion there are opposing views. That is what great about our country, we have the First Amendment, guaranteeing our freedom to discuss the matter openly.

I am descended directly from a Revolutionary War Solider that served five years under George Washington's command in the Continental Army. After the war he moved his family from New Jersey to the mountains around Keyser in 1782. I'm extremely proud of my heritage, my nation and my state. My ancestor took up arms against the British to form a nation based on freedom, even though he was only a foot solider, he took that same risk as all the patriots. Ben Franklin said it best at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately. " While I'm in no immediate danger of being hung for exercising my First Amendment rights, I do risk alienation from some friends and acquaintances that do not share my views. It is important that we have honest discussions of how government works and also just as important that you stick to your convictions.

Saturday on Facebook I posted a story entitled, "Military demands details on soldiers private guns." It is a story about infringement on the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Now I am a gun owner and strongly believe that everyone should own a gun, but I fully understand that there are people that do not agree. That is their right and it is their right to publicly oppose my view.

In follow ups to my Facebook post about the attack on the Second Amendment, one came from Jim Shumaker in which he said, "Gary ive never heaard you say a positive thing about our country or our state." Now Jim has every right to be opposed to the right to bear arms, but he should attack the message not the messenger. I will be happy to defend why I believe that people should have the right to keep and bear arms and he can explain why he disagrees with me. Questioning my love of state and country doesn't offer an opposing opinion, just a personal attack. In West Virginia and most of rural America where the owning of a gun is as much a right of passage as it is a civil right, it would be hard for Jim to offer an opposing argument that many would agree with.

That being said, the personal attack is something that liberals fall back on when they feel they are unable to defend their position. When a person begins to attack the messenger in an argument, then it typically means they have lost the argument. I would invite Jim to point out to me where it is un-American or un-West Virginian to defend the right to bear arms. For that matter to point out where it is un-American or un-West Virginian to disagree with public policy of any kind. In fact the opposite is true. It is very patriotic, if not a duty, to express your disagreement with government. The Founding Fathers wrote into the First Amendment the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" to make sure the United States says a government of the people and by the people.

We must hold politicians accountable. We must challenge them on items with which we disagree. We must hold discussions amongst ourselves and educate ourselves on the issues of the day. If we do not follow politics, then politics will follow us. I invite Jim Shumaker to challenge my positions on the issues. He can make a follow up to this post and I will defend my positions as necessary, but leave the personal attacks at home.

Obama Administration on Gun Rights

What's the Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals?

Conservatives seek to govern. Liberals seek to rule.

Conservatives believe adults ought to make their own decisions about smoking, gun ownership, and other issues. Liberals believe that the only adult choice that ought to be left to anyone is whether or not to abort a pregnancy. At that point a 12 year old ought to decide on their own.

Conservatives see guns in terms of protection. You protect your home from intruders, protect your society from an oppressive government. Liberals see them for sport only. And they want to eliminate the sport!

Conservatives want to create conditions where prosperity can take hold, develop, and create opportunities. Liberals seek to plan and tax prosperity out of existence even before it happens.

Conservatives believe clean energy comes from private investment in a variety of profitable areas, such as wind power. Liberals believe clean energy is when no energy is produced, but somehow they end up with it while everyone else conserves.

Conservatives see government as the means; it is a necessary evil. Liberals see it as the means and the end; the curbing of human desires is a good thing in itself even when those desires harm no one or only harm the individual making the choice.

Conservatives believe that the United States has a right to protect its security by acting in response to threats wherever they present themselves in the world, as Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed. Liberals believe it is all America's fault.

Conservatives believe, as Martin Luther King Jr., that men and women should be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. Liberals believe in reparations for wrongs done over one hundred and fifty years ago. Among those who should foot the bill are tens of millions whose ancestors were not even here.

Conservatives believe in a responsible balance between the interests of human beings and the maintenance of nature. Liberals do not mind putting thousands out of work on the off chance that a bird somewhere has been harmed.

Certainly conservatives individually will stray from their core beliefs. The world sometimes asks for, other times demands compromise. It is important to remember our standards and principles as American conservatives. We do not believe in simply sticking to everything that existed in the past. We believe that American principles are still relevant and that each generation must find its own way to conserve them.

**************************************************************************

Party of the Common Man Update

I never want to hear a Democrat complain about tax cuts for the wealthy again. How many Democratic leaders have we uncovered among Obama appointees who individually opted out of paying their taxes. Three at last count.

The IRS owes Obama a thanks for uncovering some pretty major tax cheats. Of course they won't lose their homes or go to jail.

Plaxico Burress

Plaxico Burress may be one of the most naturally talented receivers in the National Football League. No one has ever questioned that ability. A few have questioned his toughness, some when he was in Pittsburgh called him "Plexiglass." Of course next to Hines Ward an Abrams tank looks weak in comparison. This weekend his current team and the NFL had reason to question his judgment.

From what has been said so far, Burress walked into a nightclub in New York and exited with a gunshot wound in the leg. The bullet came from his own gun. Supposedly he had already been nursing a hamstring injury and was not playing this weekend anyway. (By the way, doctors suggest that those suffering from leg injuries stay home to heal instead of going out in public and shooting themselves.)

Now in this country we have the natural right to bear arms. That right lies enshrined in our Constitution. However there are so many just itching to infringe upon that right, especially when it comes to people protecting themselves. On the face of it, all Burress did was offer those people more ammunition.

One has to wonder why a person needs a gun in a nightclub. To me, a nightclub is a place I would go to have fun. If I felt so uncomfortable that I needed a gun, I would find somewhere else to go because feeling uncomfortable and anxious is simply not fun. I have lived around guns all my life and have grown up in a gun culture, but have never felt compelled to wear one into a bar. I imagine that if you go to any given bar or club in the Potomac Highlands you probably would find very few people carrying guns.

Perhaps Burress feared for his life and vowed to not change his lifestyle. If this is the case and there is a direct threat to his person, that would make this understandable. If he did it to simply look tough and gangsterish, then that is the mentality of a ten year old.

The problem is that there are people with legitimate reasons to conceal and carry. Social workers risk their lives going into homes. Females especially may need to carry a gun. Women breaking away from psychopathic boyfriends or husbands need personal protection everywhere they go. Every time some professional athlete trying to look gangster shoots himself or someone else in a public place, it places the rights of those that need personal protection in danger.

Howell racks up endorsements in campaign for state Senate

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Gary Howell

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 304-790-9292

Howell racks up endorsements in campaign for state Senate

State’s leading pro-life group, 2^nd Amendment organization award nods

Gary Howell, candidate for state Senate in the 14^th District, continues to rack up endorsements from leading organizations around West Virginia.

The West Virginians for Life Political Action Committee (WVFL PAC) has announced its endorsement of Howell, as has the West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL).

WVFL PAC is the internal PAC for West Virginians for Life, the state pro-life organization. WVFL is affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee and is working through education and legislation to build a society where innocent human life is respected, from conceptioon until natural death.

Brian Louk, WBFL Executive Director, stated, “We commend Mr. Gary Howell for pledging to protect unborn children from abortion on demand.”

The WVCDL is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, all-volunteer, grassroots organization of concerned West Virginians who support an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

In its endorsement process, WVCDL-PAC evaluated the records of incumbent legislators and asked all legislative candidates to complete a questionnaire on their views concerning several legislative issues important to gun owners.

“I’m thrilled that my commitment to issues important to the people of the 14^th District is recognized by leading advocacy groups around West Virginia,” said Howell. “In the Senate, I’ll work hard to bring about the positive changes we need to improve our district and our state for all its residents.”

The 14^th Senate district covers all or parts of the counties of Barbour, Grant, Mineral, Monongalia, Preston, Taylor and Tucker.

Observations from Flyover

Recently I read an article in the London Times about Obama not doing well in polling in the rural south. In fact they say Obama’s elitist campaign alienates the south. It is not just the rural south; it is all the rural areas of the country that people fly over going from major city to major city, the snobby like to call it “Flyover.”

In flyover we trust in personal responsibility, we believe government is usually more cause of a problem than solution and we believe the framers of The Constitution never intended it to be a living document.

We believe that government assistance should only get you through the rough times and not be a life style that last from birth to death. We don’t like our taxes supporting people that never work. At the same time most of us in flyover will come to your aid when you need it. We will help move furniture out of your house as the water rises; we will pull your car out of a ditch in the middle of a snow storm and an invite you in for hot chocolate. We are apt to have volunteer fire departments, not paid fire departments. We are members of Rotary, Kiwanis & Ruritan. We support the boy & girl scouts, the Food Pantry, the United Way and many other organizations. We loaded up food, clothes and blankets and drove to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after Katrina before we were asked because we knew our neighbors would need help.

We are patriots. We volunteer for military service to defend the nation at a higher rate that other areas of the nation. Our volunteers don’t get stuck in Iraq; they volunteer to go to defend our way of life.

We are not bitter, but we do cling to our religion. We believe in God. We believe in religious freedom. We know there is no separation of church and state clause in the constitution. There is a clause in the constitution states the government shall not "prohibit the free exercise" of religion. We believe that clause allows us to put baby Jesus and the wise men on the courthouse lawn as long as we allow other religions a similar display. We feel the Christian religion is under attack.

We keep and bear arms because we like to hunt and by the time the State Police or Sheriff get out of bed in the middle of the night more than an hour may have gone. Lot’s of flyover doesn’t have 24 hr police coverage. The intruder could be a burglar or even a bear, but we are quite capable of holding whatever it is at bay until authorities arrive. In flyover we are well armed and crime is low. In the cities citizens are not well armed and crime is high. That correlation is not lost on us.

While Hollywood likes to portray those in flyover as hillbillies, country bumpkins, rednecks and extras from Deliverance. The facts are our rural schools tend to have higher test scores than those in the cities. Our colleges and universities turn out Rhodes Scholars.

We are tired of high fuel prices. In flyover high fuel prices affect us more than they do for the cities. In many of our areas the bus lines quit running in the 1950’s and we haven’t seen a passenger train in about as long. Electric cars have a limited range, a range that is shorter than the round trip to work and back. We too have hour long work commutes, but those commutes are at 60 miles an hour. We like the idea of drilling for our own oil. We recognize an increase in supply reduces price. We don’t drive cars as an option we drive them as a necessity.

We are not environmentalist, but we are conservationist. We don’t visit the mountains, the desert and the plains for a week or two in the summer, we live in the mountains, the desert and the plains. We enjoy their beauty everyday and we will protect it, but we will also use it. We know our nation needs coal for power, wood for paper and furniture, and oil for our vehicles and industry. We will provide it, but we live here and will not destroy our backyard. We have learned from our own history.

The London Times story got it right. Obama’s elitist attitude fails. We want a leader that understands that rural areas have different needs than those of the cities and neither should be accommodated at the expense of the other. We want a leader that is our equal, not our superior. We are a government of the people and by the people. We understand something the founding fathers understood; all men are created equal, even in Flyover.

Howell praises Supreme Court decision upholding Second Amendment rights

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Gary Howell

Friday, June 27, 2008 304-790-9292

Howell praises Supreme Court decision upholding Second Amendment rights

KEYSER, WV — Gary Howell, candidate for the State Senate from the 14^th District, today praised the United States Supreme Court for overturning the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership and reaffirming the protections afforded by the Second Amendment.

“The decision by the Court is good news for all of us who care about the right to keep and bear arms,” said Howell. “In West Virginia, we especially value the protections of the Second Amendment, so this ruling is particularly good news in the Mountain State.”

Howell warned, though, that the narrow 5-4 decision signals that those who value the rights guaranteed by the Constitution must remain vigilant.

“It is obviously imperative that citizens continue to elect candidates to office who will protect all of our rights, from the president to the local level,” said Howell.

Howell is a longtime member of the NRA who owns and operates Howell Automotive in Keyser.

-30-

The Second Amendment Explained

A comment recently argued that the Second Amendment was vague and therefore open to an interpretation that would prevent people from owning handguns. He likely got this interpretation from the writer Garry Wills who has made a good living attacking conservative ideals over the past couple of decades.

The reason for the language in the Second Amendment is that those at the time worked within an Anglo-American tradition that needed no explanation. Just as today, we would say "the dream of Dr. King" and no one would ask "what dream" or "who is Dr. King?" those of the 1790s were children of a centuries old tradition.

King Henry II helped to build this tradition with the Assize of Arms, requiring that every male citizen own some sort of weapon. Although Alfred the Great in his time had ordered the creation of a fyrd, or militia, Henry's assize was much more specific. This enabled him to get by without a standing army because all were required to help defend the realm. However, an armed citizenry meant that Henry also had to take steps to make sure those people were happy. He traveled his kingdom to make sure he was aware of the people's needs. Later it became more convenient for kings to call representatives to the capital. The partnership between ruler and ruled, cemented by an armed people, put England on the road towards democracy. A good government has nothing to fear from an armed population, but the armed population is the best insurance policy against tyranny. And don't bring up the argument about modern weapons. The experiences and/or writings of Giap, Che Guavara, Max Boot and others about guerilla warfare bely the notion that people with their own arms are powerless in modern warfare.

In the 1600s Britain knew tyranny from both power hungry kings and Oliver Cromell's dictatorship. The natural rights of life, liberty, and property were unsafe in the hands of such a government. By the 1700s British Whigs spoke openly about the need for an armed population to protect itself from tyranny. Our forefathers, according to noted American historian Bernard Bailyn, absorbed these principles like mother's milk. It was part of the justification for the Revolution itself. Meanwhile, the Indian chief King Phillip's war of genocide against New England spurred Americans on the frontier to understand that every good citizen must be armed to defend his community. Add to these historical antecedents the natural right of people to protect themselves and their property and you have the Second Amendment.

But let's imagine for a second that guns would magically vanish. Would we be safer? Maybe the strongest of us would be. I am 6'2, 250, and fairly young. I could handle a baseball bat pretty well to defend myself and my property. What if I were elderly and frail? My grandmother until she died at age eighty kept a handgun under her bed. Her husband who died in 1973 taught her how to use it and she kept it for security. She lived far from possible police protection. If there were no guns, home invaders could easily have harmed her with bats or axes. The possibility of getting shot deters a lot of these predators. Who is anyone to deny the right of the elderly or the disabled to defend themselves? How about the young woman trying to break away from a much stronger and abusive man who has promised to kill her if she ever leaves? Who is anyone to take away her right to protect herself? The intruder will think twice before entering a home if there is a possibility of the resident shooting him or her to death.

The Second Amendment's guarantee of gun rights is meant to help assist in the national defense, give property owners the ability to defend themselves and their families, and insure against a tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson, who has been described as James Madison's collaborator to the point that one historian claimed they by the early 1790s almost shared the same mind, described the Second Amendment as his favorite because it helped protect against tyranny. This gives an important clue as to the mindset of the author, James Madison. No one at that time would have fathomed that people's right to defend their persons with deadly force would ever be questioned. It would be like questioning your right to eat whatever you wanted.

The violent will be violent, governments at some point will seek too much authority, and at some point we will face a serious attack on our territory. The first measure taken to prepare any nation for dictatorship is the removal of the citizens' guns. We must never allow ourselves to be in that position as a nation or as individuals, vulnerable to whatever strong force seeks to violate us.

Common Sense, Right?

Say you are living in a house on several acres of property many miles out a dirt road. You and your family are at home in the middle of the night. Suddenly you hear a window break and the sound of strange feet on your hardwood floors.

Say you are a single mother with a few kids. Some creepy guy has followed you home the last couple of nights. Now it is three AM and you hear your locked door being pried open.

Another single mother just got the courage to break up with her abusive boyfriend. He swears she will never live without him. Again in the middle of the night comes the sound of an intruder.

Americans find themselves in situations such as these every single day. Sounds of breaking and entering strike like lightning into the hearts of homeowners. People have the right to be secure in their homes. In recent times country after country has turned its back on the right of people to bear arms. Anti-gun activists claim that hunting is immoral and unfit for modern times. Although hunting is an ancient right as well as an effective tactic to manage wildlife, this is not the issue. Individuals have the right to defend their homes and their families with weapons that can neutralize any intruder.

It is the most vulnerable that need the guns and the knowledge of their use the most. Home invaders select the elderly and the single woman. Should these people trust to the mercies of people breaking into their homes? Absolutely not. If a person breaks into a home who does not belong there, they need to understand that they take their life in their hands. This is part of what the Second Amendment is all about. People have a natural right to defend their homes and their families.

The nonpartisan West Virginia Citizens' Defense League supports this ideal. It recently endorsed Gary Howell in the race for the 14th Senatorial District.

West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc Endorses Gary Howell

Morgantown, W.Va. — WVCDL-PAC, the political action committee of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (WVCDL), is pleased to announce that it has endorsed Gary Howell candidate seeking election to the West Virginia Senate 14th District.

WVCDL is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, all-volunteer, grassroots organization of concerned West Virginians who support an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. During the 2008 legislative session, WVCDL was instrumental in defeating proposed legislation that would have substantially increased concealed handgun license fees and prohibited law-abiding citizens from carrying any weapon in the casino area of the state’s four racetracks.

In its endorsement process, WVCDL-PAC evaluated the records of incumbent legislators and asked all legislative candidates to complete a questionnaire on their views concerning several legislative issues important to gun owners.

WVCDL-PAC Chairman Jim Mullins said: We have received a tremendous response to our questionnaires. There are many quality candidates of both political parties, challengers and incumbents alike, who have demonstrated their firm commitment to protecting the rights of West Virginia gun owners. We made very difficult decisions in a couple of races where several candidates were equally good choices. I would encourage every candidate seeking the support of gun owners to respond to our questionnaire, as our endorsement process will continue through the general election.

Guns Make Citizens

Last week I came home to find the Washington DC local news on. The local station was doing a story about a gun search. That's right. Without warrants, people's homes were being searched for guns that are currently illegal in Washington DC. Presumably this is because they fear that their law will be found in violation of the Second Amendment. Of course these are likely the homes of law abiding citizens because no one would just barge into a drug lord's home to demand guns. My daughter said that it sounded like something that the British might do shortly before the Revolution.

The first thing that dictatorships seize is people's guns. Other countries, such as Japan, hesitated to directly invade the US due to widespread gun ownership. Thomas Jefferson saw them as key to a free people protecting their freedoms from a tyrannical government. The right goes back to the Middle Ages when King Henry II of England required people to arm themselves to protect the nation. He as a result understood that he needed to be better acquainted with the people's needs and traveled widely to keep in touch with their wishes. Later kings found it more convenient to call assemblies later known as Parliamant into session. An armed population is one that the government goes to greater lengths to keep happy.

Certainly the biggest threat on the horizon, besides the current case before the US Supreme Court, is Barrack Obama. According to many, his actual views as he wrote in his book are far to the left of the mainstream. He is the stalking horse for George Soros and MoveOn.org who continue their quest to revolutionize the United States and transform it into something quite alien from the original dreams of the Founding Fathers. Their guiding star is not George Washington, but Karl Marx. Of course the people must be rendered impotent first.

The American definition of rights is freedoms granted by God or nature. The American definition of citizen describes a person who not only enjoys, but fights for these rights. Gun ownership ensures our rights now and forever, or at least until we elect governments that obliterate their enjoyment.

A Comment on National Stability

This was addressed earlier in the week, but I really cannot help commenting more upon the study that rated the United States as growing more unstable.

The twentieth century saw regimes that were much more stable than the United States at that time or now. Stalin's Soviet Union in peacetime and Saddam Hussein's Iraq had little crime (outside of those committed by the government.) People did not act out or make waves. In large countries, such stability comes with a heavy price.

Smaller countries have an easier time maintaining social stability. Switzerland is also one of the most stable nations of the twentieth century and managed to avoid involvement in both world wars. The key to their stability and survival lay in the fact that they have a heavily armed population. Like the United States and Britain in an older day, an armed citizenry was seen as crucial to national defense against invaders and internal tyranny.

Speaking of stability, probably one of the most politically and socially stable regions of the United States is the Appalachian region. Crime rates remain extremely low despite other social problems. Violent crime is rare compared to other areas such as Washington DC. DC has experienced destructive riots as well as gang rule over entire neighborhoods. DC has the most restrictive gun laws anywhere while West Virginia has the most permissive. I meet young people from these urban areas all the time who come from law abiding families. They are often as strident in their defense of Second Amendment rights as we are. Who is going to protect them if a crazed crack addict tries to break into their house? An overworked police force? Suburban liberals who live behind walls and bars? Nope, just the individual and his or her weapon.

Stability is not always a good concept. Our nation is experiencing a less than stable political cycle. Poll questions constantly ask "who will best unite the country?" The fact is that we are at our most free when we are not united (except in extreme emergencies.) The sign of a healthy body politic and a free society is a little instability. Hard fought political debates over issues between knowledgable individuals is positive, not negative. Crime is something we must live with unless we want unrestrained government power monitoring and guiding our lives (parents of schoolchildren are enduring this more and more every year.) A little instability is a positive sign that we still enjoy the freest society on earth.

US Falls to 22nd Most Stable Country

The US fell to 22nd in Jane's Country Risk Assessment which ranks the 235 countries and independent territories in the world on risk and prosperity. The top ten were the Vatican, Sweden, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, the United Kingdom, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic. The bottom ten included the West Bank and Gaza, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, the Ivory Coast, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic.

The top 30 countries in the world are considered stable. The US scored 93 out of a possible 100. Christian Le Mière, managing editor of Jane's Country Risk Assessment stated the reason for the drop to 22nd was "partly because of the proliferation of small arms owned by Americans and the threat to the population posed by the flow of drugs from across the Mexican border."

While I agree with the study that says our border security increases the risk to Americans. It is not just from drugs as it allows for the possibility for terrorist entering the county. I strongly disagree that gun owning American's increase the risk. The facts are that those citizens exercising their 2nd Amendments add to the security of America.

This study is flawed. Most of the top 10 are the worlds smallest nations. They are not exactly secure. Consider that when Germany invaded Western Europe in 1940, Luxembourg was nothing more than a speed bump in the Blitzkrieg race to the Channel. With the exception of the United Kingdom the rest of the counties in the top ten primarily rely on the goodwill of one country to maintain their freedom. That country would be the United States.

The study does not take into effect the stabilizing effect the United States has on the world. The study is flawed in that respect.