Gun Control - it's not about guns, it's about CONTROL

I've been doing a lot of reading on gun control, lately, and I noticed something. Both sides were arguing the purely practical aspect - guns cause crime/guns prevent crime.

Typical pro-gun position - guns are good because they help prevent crime, and allow people to protect themselves, in addition to hunting and sport. Military rifles are fine, since they're useful in self-defense.

Typical anti-gun position - guns are BAD, but it's okay to have them if they're kept locked away, that way they can't be used in crimes. Definitely no military rifles, since they have no practical purpose.

Congratulations, different portions of the population. Both of you are COMPLETELY missing the point. The Second Amendment protects a right, and whether or not guns increase or decrease crimes, it is my right to own them. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, and little to do with personal safety. The purpose of this right is to be able to resist attacks on liberty.

The right to bear arms is there to allow us to protect ourselves FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Anti-gun guys, I understand your intentions. But when the government tries to restrict guns, it is NOT to protect people - it is to solidify its CONTROL of the people. Pro-gun guys, once again I understand your intentions. But stop arguing from the crime-related position. Seriously. Start arguing from the position of the fact that IT IS A RIGHT, and the government CANNOT take that right away. All else is a red herring.

Now, if the government is so bent on controlling us, WHY is it not restricting our right to free speech and instead focusing on the right to bear arms? Well, first of all, it is actually trying - the PATRIOT Act, for example. Second, they are a LOT more worried about people with guns than people with blogs. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns - outlaws and the government. Personally, I'm a LOT more concerned about the government. The evil Chairman Mao of China acknowledged that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Thus, for Communists, only the government should have guns - can't risk the people having political power! Take a quick look how that worked out. Thomas Jefferson, arguably the most important of the Founders, stated that "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made it abundantly clear in the Federalist Papers that the right to bear arms is for protection against possible usurpations of power by the Feds.

In short, the REAL question with "gun control" is purely about control. Do the people control the government, or does the government control the people? "Practical" guns are all well and good, but good luck defending your freedom with a shotgun and a pistol, if it ever comes to that. Military rifles are easily targeted by the gun control lobby, since they have relatively little use for hunting, and pistols or shotguns do fine for personal defense. But they are arguably the most important category of guns to allow the people to own! Take a look at what every military on the planet uses - military rifles. The US uses the M-16. The Russians use the AK-whatever-number-is-preferred-at-the-moment. Either one is superior in almost every way to "practical" guns like bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and handguns when it comes to warfare - the exception being that bolt rifles tend to have ridiculous range and power, making spectacular sniper rifles. Military guns have higher capacity, greater versatility, a MUCH higher rate-of-fire, faster reloads, and tend to be better for combat generally. They're also a heck of a lot scarier looking than "practical" guns.

When the government wants to ban military ("assault") weapons, they are NOT trying to protect you. They are trying to eliminate your ability to resist.

Can we say, "Media bias?"

Okay, if you're following the Republican debates, you know that the two top candidates are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, right? Wrong. Dr. Ron Paul, according to polls, is in the top two - in fact, according to a Yahoo poll, he won the recent debate. Of course, to look at the title of the article, you'd never guess that he existed. The following is the actual title of the Yahoo article:

Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth

Notice anything really, REALLY weird about that title? Romney first, Huntsman third, Perry fourth. I could have sworn that there was a number called "two." Sadly, them not including the runner-up in the title doesn't surprise me. Know why? Because Dr. Paul was number two, and the media insists that he not exist. The media has declared him to be a "non-person" in a way strikingly similar to the Soviet Union.

The article gives him ONE SENTENCE, devoting much more time to Perry, the Bush rerun, even though he placed fourth. Heck, it devotes plenty of time to all of the top four EXCEPT Ron Paul. Here's the article if you're wondering: http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-leads-hampshire-huntsman-third-perry-fourth-150212964.html

Ron Paul MUST win the Republican nomination. If he does not, it will prove that there is NO hope for this country, and our only option left is taking it back from the bottom up.

All you libertarians who don't vote on some principle or another - I beg you, vote just this one time. Get Ron Paul in office, and maybe we can finally get some REAL change for freedom. Believe it or not, it IS possible to shrink government. Jefferson did it in 1800. If Ron Paul wins, this would literally be the single most important and revolutionary election in over two hundred years. If not? It'll be more of the same, with the next president advancing us ever more rapidly to our inevitable destruction. More war, more taxes, more regulation, and less freedom. That's the inevitable result of another business-as-usual election

The absurd myth of macroevolution

I was just read the book, "Now, That's a Good Question!" by R.C. Sproul, and a certain quote inspired me to finally get back to this blog and post this. Sproul described macroevolution as "one of the most unsubstantiated myths I've ever seen perpetuated in academic circles."

Here's the thing - Darwinists have tons of evidence showing that a degree of evolution can happen. That's basically a confirmed fact. Just look at dogs. Wolves, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs all probably share a common ancestor. The same probably goes for a lot of bear species and felines, among others. However, that's microevolution, not the all-encompassing, life-from-one-cell macroevolution that Darwinists believe in.

So, you ask one of them to show you evidence. They'll come up with all kinds of things supposedly showing how it can happen. It all sounds very convincing. Here's the problem: showing that it "can" happen does not prove to any degree that it "has" happened. So where's their evidence that it HAS happened?

Nowhere.

It's not here.

It cannot be found.

It doesn't exist.

Proof that macroevolution happened exists the same way unicorns and fairies exist - in people's imaginations.

In other words, they expect reasonable people to accept that something happened against all odds that they have ZERO evidence for. They do not have a tape of matter appearing from nothing, or a primitive bacterium being spontaneously generated from chemical goo. Even according to atheists, the odds of such things happening are infinitesimally small.

First, we must assume that all matter in the universe appeared out of NOWHERE. We must then accept that this tiny ball of matter exploded and formed the entire universe, that some of that matter formed a spiral galaxy, and in that galaxy was formed a star just the right size, with eight planets at just the right size and positions to promote life on the third of them - Earth.

We must also convince ourselves that a planet-sized object then rammed into Earth, scattering enough debri to form a perfectly-sized moon that causes tides required for life in the oceans.

As if that's not impossible enough, we're then expected to believe that on this perfectly-sized planet there is just enough oxygen to promote life, but not enough that said life would spontaneously burst into flames. Next, supposedly, chemical goo somehow assembled itself into a fully-functioning reproducing, feeding, reacting proto-bacterium, which then, via mutations and natural selection, changed over eons into jellyfish, eels, dinosaurs, crocodiles, hamsters, trees, algae, eagles, and people.

Interesting thing - the odds of even ONE of these things happening are unbelievably small. Suddenly God doesn't sound so ridiculous, does He? The modern Darwinist flat out tell us that we should ignore our common sense and believe that all this happened. Why? What could POSSIBLY make the above absurdity ANY more plausible than the Bible's account? Especially considering that the Bible, over and over again, is being proven right, and even Richard Dawkins at least acknowledges that nature "overwhelmingly impresses us with the illusion of design." (FYI - a certain atheist I have debated claimed I was taking that out of context. I am not. I clearly included the word illusion, and my point still stands. Dawkins admits that nature looks designed, and we must convince ourselves that it is not.)

Just for kicks, here's an issue with biological evolution that throws it down for good. It can't happen. There is no way for organisms to gain genetic information. Mutations can alter or destroy genetic information, but it can't create new information. Oops. I just wrote a paragraph that kicks the legs out from under the current scientific paradigm.

For the record - I truly respect Charles Darwin as a scientist. He was intelligent, honest, and more than willing to acknowledge gaps in his theory - which is much more than can be said for those so-called "scientists" who blatantly say that they will only accept evidence that supports Darwinism. Did he take it back? No, because at his death it still seemed perfectly reasonable. A hundred years of science, though, and it has not held up. Darwin would have acknowledged this if he had been alive to see it.

This. Means. WAR.

I have recently had the immense displeasure of reading Challenge III's history textbook, A Patriot's History of the United States. The title should give a lot away about the book - that, and the fact that it's been endorsed by Glenn Beck. I have been writing down the major historical errors I've found in first third of the book, and I will address them here.

This is gonna be a loooong post.

First off - they refer to Northern colonies as "non-slaveholding" and Southern ones as slaveholding. Minor problem - the colonies all had slaves in 1763, the year that was being discussed. Oops.

Moving forward thirty or so years, we come to the great Adams/Hamilton vs Jefferson/Madison years. The guys who wrote this book defend Adams and the Federalists to a ludicrous degree. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? The latter of the two was a blatant violation of the right to free speech and freedom of the press as protected by the First Amendment. The Patriot's History guys, however, say it was "arguably" unconstitional. Arguably? REALLY? That's just pathetic.

Throughout the book so far, the authors repeatedly associate states' rights with racism and attack the doctrine of nullification, never mind that it was and is a critical check on the government's power.

They also defend the position that a president can unilaterally declare preemptive war by citing an incident in which President Jefferson dispatched troops to the Barbary States. Minor problem - the Barbary States had declared war first (so much for "preemptive"), and Mr. Jefferson consistently sought Congressional authorization. There goes "unilateral."

It just gets better, though! According to these poor deluded fellows, the "necessary and proper" clause allows Congress to do pretty much anything. Unfortunately for them, it also states that said "necessary and proper" laws must be made within the Constitution's limits.

Now the REAL fun begins - the "crisis of union" in their words. They EXPLICITLY call secession treason, forgetting that the colonies seceded from the British Empire. I can only assume that this was treason as well. In reality, Constitutionally speaking, using force against a seceding state is the real act of treason. They also fail to mention the fact that Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, John Adams, James Madison, and others explicitly or implicitly stated that secession was a necessary means to secure liberty.

Oh yeah, and a certain Illinois lawyer said the same thing.

Yes, I am referring to Abraham Lincoln. When he came into the picture, this book got a LOT more annoying. My gosh. This is one of most embarrassing Lincoln-worship sessions I have ever read. They attempt to portray him as a champion of black rights. This is new information to me, 'cause last time I checked, he explicitly said that whites were superior, and was a member of the Colonization Society, the purpose of said Society being to free the slaves - then boot them to Africa and Central America. They then claim that in the 1860 election, only Abe stood "squarely against slavery." I nearly gagged when I read that. I'm sorry, but the authors must have come from a different universe, because in this one, Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no intentions to interfere with Southern slavery, and he also supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have made slavery permanent and literally untouchable by the government. Oh, and there was an Illinois law prohibiting the immigration of blacks - guess who voted for it?

As far as Lincoln's Republican party buddies go, the Patriot's History kooks portray them as egalitarian, black-rights free-soil saints. Eh, not so much. They were the same ones who voted along with Lincoln to prohibit black immigration to their states. Their free soil position was not so much a moral opposition to slavery as it was an overt attempt to reserve the territories for free WHITE labor.

To top it all off, in reference to the secession conventions they say, "Given that the South was bent on violating the Constitution no matter what..."

I hope for the authors' safety that they never say something that stupid in front of me.

After 10 long years...

Osama Bin Laden is finally dead. This is undeniably a good thing. But before we get caught up in the excitement caused by killing the Big Bad, we should do two things.

Number one - realize that a monster has been killed. A monster that the United States' government created in the first place. Keep that in mind.

Number two - we need to ask ourselves, "At what price did we stop this man?"

Thousands of United States soldiers dead...



...Iraq and Afghanistan still war-torn and occupied...






...and to top it all off, infuriated radical Muslims.





Obviously, it is a good thing that bin Laden was brought to justice. But always keep in mind the cost, and the fact that were it not for the United States arming him during the Cold War, he would never have become a threat.

Leigh Bortons interviews Tom Woods

If you're wondering who Leigh Bortons is, she's basically the one who started Classical Conversations, the homeschooling method we use. In the following interview, she and THOMAS E. WOODS discuss a number of economic and political issues. I found it very interesting.

Listen to internet radio with 1 Smart Mama on Blog Talk Radio

Are all religions basically the same?

I know, I typically don't talk about religion. If I haven't offended you with my politics, odds are I'll now offend you in some other way. Sorry, but I've been running into the "all religions are the same" BS quite a bit recently, and feel the need to address it. Oops, just gave away my position. Now I shall elaborate.

One of the most insidious versions of this one is the claim that the God of Christianity and Islam are the same. They most certainly are NOT. The Bible makes it clear that God is Three and One. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Muslims consider this polytheism - Allah is NOT a triune god. Already, we've plainly distinguished that Islam and Christianity are incompatible. Also, Christians believe that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, sent to die for our sins. Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but nothing more.

The rest of the "all religions are basically the same" argument falls apart. Islam is one of the religions that is most easily compared to Christianity. Buddhism? It teaches that there is no God. Hinduism has MANY gods. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, and believe that Jesus was in fact the archangel Michael.

Jesus Himself said that He was the only way to Heaven, which makes Christianity 100% incompatible with other religions. There is only room for ONE religion to lead to eternal salvation, only room for ONE religion to be true.

That religion is Christianity. It's not a matter of personal taste, as liberals like to make it out to be. It's a matter of life and death.