Libs are Insane...

Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

So by this definition, the "gun control works" crowd are insane.

I love reading the insights from a man named Robert A. Levy. He is a brilliant man with a square head on his shoulders (and by that I don't mean his head is ACTUALLY square). I will list some of his "creds" so you can see he is not just some bumpkin hillbilly like me.

He...
Is senior fellow in constitutional studies and a member of the board of directors at the Cato Institute.

He also sits on boards of the Institute for Justice, the Federalist Society, and the George Mason University School of Law.

He founded CDA Investment Technologies, a major provider of financial information and software, and was its CEO until 1991.

He clerked for Judge Royce C. Lamberth on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., and for Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

From 1997 until 2004, he was an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University.

He has written numerous articles on investments, law, and public policy. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, National Review, and many other publications.

He received his Ph.D. in business from the American University and his J.D. degree from the George Mason University School of Law.


ALL that just to say... This guy is an intelligent man.

I have no degrees. I have no awards or honors... But I think for myself. I read, and learn all I can on many subjects. But He & I share some beliefs and ideas on the 2nd amendment.

Here is an article by him that appeared in the American Spectator on April 25, 2007. It is about Virginia Tech, the Awful Massacre that occurred there, and the idea of "gun free zones". If this topic is SENSITIVE to you, I ADVISE THAT YOU DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING.

______________________________________


"What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." So said the New York Times in its predictable but wrongheaded editorial the day after the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Anti-gun advocates, however noble their motives, help create the environment in which horrors like Virginia Tech occur.

Possession and use of guns on the Tech campus violated state-imposed restrictions. But crazed fanatics, undeterred by laws against murder, will not be dissuaded by laws against guns. More such laws will accomplish nothing. Indeed, liberalized laws might have enabled responsible, armed citizens on campus to defend the hapless victims. It took two hours for the killer methodically to massacre 32 people and injure another 15. Why did nobody intervene sooner to stop the killer?

For one possible explanation, consider this report from a Roanoke Times article: A bill, introduced on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, would have given properly licensed public college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus. The bill died on January 30, 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was pleased with the outcome. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Tell that to the ill-fated victims of April 16 and their families.

The article goes on to relate that most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security on entering campus. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that requirement for anyone who possessed a valid concealed handgun permit. Ironically, Tech's governing board had approved in June 2005 a violence prevention policy reiterating the school's ban on students, employees, or visitors -- even those properly licensed -- from bringing handguns onto campus.

At the Virginia Tech press conference after the slaughter of 32 defenseless people, the university's president cautioned that it wouldn't be possible to have police guard every classroom and dorm. What he omitted was this cold, hard fact: By making the university a "gun free zone," his administration and the state legislature had fostered a climate in which ubiquitous police would be necessary. Without a means to protect themselves, Virginia Tech students, faculty, and other employees were more likely to be victimized by the only people on campus who had readily available guns: killers and lunatics.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, the Brady Center, and the rest of the usual suspects continue their clamor for more gun regulations -- apparently oblivious to the destructive effects of their own proposals. The evidence is clear: more guns in the hands of responsible owners yield lower rates of violent crime. Gun control does not work. It just prevents weaker people from defending themselves against stronger predators.

Here are the numbers, as summarized by legal scholar Don B. Kates: Over the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, guns in circulation doubled, but murder rates declined by a third. On a state-by-state basis, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent lower rate of violent crime. Each year, approximately 460,000 gun crimes are committed in the United States. But guns are also used to ward off gun criminals. Estimates of defensive gun use range from 1.3 million to 2.5 million times per year -- and usually the weapons are merely brandished, not fired. That means defensive uses occur about 3-to-5 times as often as violent gun crimes. Just as important, armed victims who resist gun criminals get injured less frequently than unarmed victims who submit. In more than 8 out of 10 cases where the victim pulls a gun, the criminal turns and flees, even if he's armed. "So much for the quasi-religious faith that more guns mean more murder."

Finally, two federal government agencies recently examined gun control laws and found no statistically significant evidence to support their effectiveness. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.

When will the gun controllers learn?

______________________________________________


There is a reason that gun violence continues in spite of every gun control law that is out there. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW !!! Maybe that is why they are CRIMINALS ? What do you think about that, Brady bunch of idiots? (for the "educated"; I am not talking about the lovely family friendly show from the 70's)

There is a law against murder.
There is a law against shooting people.
There is a law against assaulting people.
There is a law against driving drunk.
There is a law against wife beating.
There is a law against speeding.
There is a law against coming to this country illegally.
There is a law against hunting or fishing without a license.
There is a law against cheating on your taxes.

And I could go on, and on, and on. But the point is... that people follow laws or they don't. And those that do ... are law abiding citizens. Those that don't ... are criminals. It doesn't matter if you get caught or not. If what you are doing is illegal ... it is illegal, period - end of sentence. You only get punished if you get caught.

Now here is another tidbit of info for you ... And I would bet that not too many of you know this ... in fact I just happened to stumble across it while trying to learn something the other day.

South V. Maryland 59 US (how) 396, 15L.ED.433 (1856) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the law.

Wow ... and what does the Left tell you to do when someone breaks into your house? Run and call the cops...

But if the Supreme Court says that " local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals " why would you call the cops anyway?

Once you learn that you have a responsibility to protect yourself ... You will become a much more free individual. Once you stop being a victim ... you will be able to live without the fear that so tightly grips the Left. Once you see that you don't HAVE to be a victim ... the happier you will be.

We are not cattle. We are not sheep. We are men. We are Americans. We are free by God's design. If you are not willing to fight for that ... you will be enslaved.