The recent attacks by Pakistani militants in India have exposed a startling weakness in Indian domestic security policy.  Gun laws are extremely tight for both police and civilians, and any gunman with a political agenda knows that they are unlikely to encounter any serious armed opposition from victims.  Although the hotels employ private security guards, they’re unarmed - which seems completely pointless:

The Oberoi Group employs many plainclothes security officers in its hotels, but these are unarmed, Oberoi said. Obtaining a license for even a single officer to carry a gun is extremely difficult in India, which has tight gun control laws.

Ironically, “Gun Free Zones” are too often the site of gun-related massacres.  This is the situation on college campuses and schools in the United States, and it goes back to the old Luby’s Cafeteria situation - suicidal and deranged individuals target those areas because they know they can get away with quite a lot before the police show up.  Usually they simply get tired of waiting and kill themselves, after going through the area fairly thoroughly.  Law enforcement officers, it turns out, do not live in underground burrows scattered numerously across the urban landscape.  They can’t just pop out like groundhogs whenever trouble may arise.

Conversely, attacks on areas with lots of well-armed and responsible people are very low.  Except in times of conflict, military bases are generally extremely safe, despite the massive numbers of people carrying weapons around.  Police stations don’t usually get attacked, except by T-800 units looking for Sarah Connor.  Armed robberies on gun stores in the US are exceedingly rare, and those that do occur typically end with a lopsided outcome that does not fall in the perpetrator’s favor.

Above: The Kel-Tec .380, the smallest gun of its caliber in
the world, and a popular choice for concealable self-defense.

Self-defense is a human right, and a very natural reaction to the actions of a predator.  This does not mean that armed civilians should go out hunting down an attacker in another area of a mall or school.  More often, people simply lay low in an area, and defend themselves if needed.  The arguments about interfering with police and responding officers “not being able to tell the difference” between perpetrators and civilians are illogical canards.

Until people are recognized as rational beings capable of decisionmaking and taking responsible actions to defend themselves, incidents like Mumbai, Columbine and Luby’s will probably continue.  Governments that remove that aspect of responsibility and inherent freedom are doing their citizens a disservice and placing them in danger.

Take, for instance, his scheme to provide free labor on the back of millions of students in middle school, high school and college.  Rebadging this as “community service”, Obama has apparently tipped his hand that he’s been bluffing all along on race.  Barack Obama’s ancestors were never forced into a national program of “community service” (ie, slavery) to build up the United States - they lived in their native land of Kenya for centuries.  Apparently, Obama missed the memo about the difference between the type of labor that one does out of coercion and for free, and the type that one does willingly and for pay.

President-Elect Obama should take a minute out of his future-gazing and vision-questing and read the Thirteenth Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And there it is - a national requirement for “involuntary servitude” for those who have not been convicted of any crime, is prohibited by the Constitution.  It would amount to punishing people before they’ve committed a wrong.

That idea of “guilty before proven innocent” actually dovetails nicely with the liberal mindset - taking away anything that might possibly hurt us, before any incompetent, non-able individuals might do something foolish.  We can’t have cars; we might run over ourselves.  Guns are dangerous; we might shoot ourselves.  Controlling our own money?  Heavens to Betsy, no!  That money must be taxed and redistributed among people who can’t possibly use it wisely.

I’m looking forward to hearing more of Obama’s hare-brained scam ideas.  What next…a proposal to ban “bad” opinions?  A requirement that we all volunteer to quarter members of his “citizen army” in our own houses?  Gently erasing the Tenth Amendment?

It had better be something good and hilarious, or I’m going to be disappointed.

Liberal documentaries rake in big bucks at the movies while conservatives opt to just stay home or tune out Hollywood entirely. Santorum encouraged everyone in the room to go out and see the new film, An American Carol. He stressed that liberals are successfully dominating American culture only because conservatives are choosing not to contest the battle.

Unfortunately, as there were a couple of open bars in the room and everyone was tired and unwinding, the crowd was quite loud. But I did manage to catch most of his speech on video and I will attempt to post that when I return home.

It could be chalked up to the increasingly scant taboos in society, or over-sexualization in advertising, or any number of factors.  Maybe it has always happened, but print pictures weren’t as easy to pass around.

Whatever the case, a 15 year old girl - who wasn’t thinking straight - apparently got herself into a lot of trouble.

NEWARK, Ohio — Central Ohio authorities have filed felony charges against a 15-year-old girl accused of taking nude cell phone photos of herself and sending them to high school classmates.

This is a parenting issue, not something for law enforcement to pursue.  Essentially, police have charged her with a crime similar to that handed down to creepy guys with houses full of tapes who get busted after an 8-week investigation.  If the girl wasn’t already messed up for some reason, she certainly will be now that she’s considered a sex criminal.  This seems as if it’s less out of concern for the child’s well-being than just making a point or running up some statistics about how many sex criminals were arrested in a year.

From a law enforcement policy perspective, this probably doesn’t have anything to do with kids actually taking pictures of themselves.  It has more to do with plugging legal loopholes by keeping children from being coerced by others into producing material themselves, thus causing adults to be able to leapfrog at least some charges.  It’s taking what might be an otherwise innocuous behavior in and of itself, and restricting it because in the real world, it’s often connected to something illegal - rather like restricting the sales of cold medicines because they might be used in meth production, or not allowing private individuals to own submarines because of the possibility of smuggling.

Still, this demands that those individuals deriving benefit from this law accept as valid that what society insists is such a big deal, even though it in and of itself is not that destructive.  This extends into a lot of areas such as the government restricting homeschooling, Second Amendment rights and Obama’s plan to require parents to get healthcare coverage for their children.  That seems like a rather large framework to expect someone to accept in a free society.

Apparently though, this kid (or possibly her parents) isn’t just going to roll over and take it.

On Monday, she entered denials to juvenile charges of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and possession of criminal tools.

Maybe self-produced child porn asks for some sort of self-exploitation treatment program.  More simply, the solution may also just be…

“Hey, you know you can get arrested for having pictures of yourself since you’re a minor, right?”

“What!?  Are you crazy?”

“No, seriously!  It’s a huge hassle and you have to go to jail.”

“Huh…well, I’ll delete them then.”

Additionally, what’s this about considering charges against people who received the pictures?  Are the police actually aware of how MMS or email works?  If we only got the messages we wanted, the word “spam” would still mean something that some people (who are not me) eat when desperate.

For example…

Obama, “Urban Policy”: Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Whoa.  First…what’s a “childproof gun”?  Is that a firearm that has a little push-and-twist cap like on the laughably “childproof” prescription bottles?  Or is it like the majority of semiautomatic handguns that require a decent grip and meaningful pull to rack the slide and chamber a round?  Most untrained children under 10 are not capable of doing this.  Some adults cannot do it with ease.  Anyone who owns a gun should have enough mental capacity to keep it away from small children.  Keeping it unloaded may also be an effective (if somewhat purpose-defeating) way of preventing an incident caused by negligence.

The Assault Weapons Ban was widely decried as ineffective and stupid, even by the Brady Campaign.  The term “assault weapon” is utterly meaningless - it is not a technical term and can ultimately be applied to nearly anything.  The AWB mostly banned certain cosmetic features that can be changed out and really have no bearing on the lethality of the weapon.  Virtually any hunting rifle can be taken apart and refitted with complicated-looking gear in dark colors - a telescoping stock, bipod, various grips, a bigger magazine - so that it ends up looking as if it came from a movie.  It becomes politically incorrect based on what pieces of plastic are added to make it look more aggressive.  People do the same thing with cars - but plastic and obnoxious mufflers do not make a car go any faster.

Above:  The common Ruger Mini-14, a small hunting rifle chambered in .223 and used to shoot small game or for target practice.  This can be commonly found across America on ranches and in rural backyards.

Above: The same rifle, with cosmetic changes so that it looks more intimidating for an ATF press conference.  The media described this as a “.53 caliber rifle”, which is far overstating its capabilities and also inventing a whole new class of ammunition.  Apparently the goal is to mislead the public.

Next…Factcheck says that NRA falsely claims Obama is against people owning handguns.

The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 - 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however. Rather, it created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws.

It states that in any Illinois municipality where gun registration is required it shall be an “affirmative defense” if the person accused of violating the registration requirement can show that the weapon was used “in an act of self-defense or defense of another … when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.”

Letting the owner of an unregistered firearm escape the penalty for failing to register is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense.  The bill came about after Hale DeMar, of Wilmette, Ill., shot a burglar who had invaded his home. At the time, Wilmette had an ordinance that prohibited owning handguns.

So…Illinois passed a law that no one who uses an unregistered or illegally owned firearm in self-defense can be prosecuted.  Obama opposed it - which would suggest that Obama supports municipalities banning handguns, because what’s the point if people are prosecuted for their proper use?  In other words, Newsweek has proven exactly what the NRA was saying.

Next…Factcheck exposes its ignorance with respect to ammunition.  Amazing.

NRA Claim: “Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting”
False: Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not, as claimed in an NRA TV spot featuring a Virginia hunter named Karl Rusch, vote to “ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition.” What Obama voted for was a measure to ban “armor-piercing” ammunition, which the measure’s sponsor has said repeatedly would not cover hunting ammunition.

This claim is based on Obama’s vote on S. 397 in the U.S. Senate. Obama was one of 31 senators who voted in favor of S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397 which sought to “expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition.”

Body armor comes in all sorts of grades.  The lowest grade, IA, will only protect against the smallest calibers, at the lowest velocities.  They redefined “armor piercing” to really mean “anything that will pierce the cheapest body armor available”. This is your pedestrian, run-of-the-mill ammunition that has been around for years in bolt action rifles.  Nothing special whatsoever.

The fact is that hunting ammunition has some serious power for a reason.  You can’t kill a deer or bear with an Airsoft gun.  Practically anything worth hunting with (including a bow and arrow) could potentially be considered “armor piercing” if you lower the bar far enough.  Obviously these types of things are dangerous if used irresponsibly, which is why they require responsible use.  Duh.

Next…Senator Ted Kennedy is apparently delusional.

Sen. Kennedy (March 2, 2004): My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability.

So, if I have a box of .308 that has a deer on it and another box of the exact same kind of ammunition that says, “Armor-Blaster!”…the latter is far more dangerous?  What?  That may be irresponsible advertising, but that’s as bad as it gets.  This is as meaningless as the AWB that bans rifles with scary-looking handles.  It’s the same exact product.

I’m going to skip the section on Obama’s handgun policy.  It sounds a little confused - maybe the questionnaire was filled out by mistake by a staffer.  Still, based on everything I’ve seen so far, it wouldn’t be out of pattern for him to suggest such a measure.

Obama has not denied that he is against the issuance of Concealed Weapons Permits.

More recently, Obama was quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in an article on April 2, 2008, saying “I am not in favor of concealed weapons. … I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

Well, at least he’s honest here.  However, he’s also quite wrong.  There are very few instances where CWP holders have been involved in crime (they are overwhelmingly an extremely law-abiding bunch) and in fact, tend to not become involved in altercations to begin with.  The image of swaggering Rambo-types is altogether inaccurate.   Experience shows that people who have gone through a class and a licensing process, do regular training and particularly who are connected to other CWP holders and study firearms laws in their particular state, are highly unlikely to jeopardize their right to carry when faced with some sort of dispute.  The mentality is different - a concealed firearm is thought of as a last resort defensive measure, and not as a method of offensive attack.  In fact, considered from this angle, issuance of CWPs probably reduces violent crime more than any other factor related to firearms regulation.

On to Obama’s effort to reinstate the poorly thought-out AWB:

As recently as Aug. 28, when accepting his party’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

Obama’s policy statement doesn’t mention any expansion of the expired ban, however. We’re not sure where the NRA gets its claim that “millions” of additional weapons would be covered.

Since the ban expired, millions of rifles have been purchased that would be covered under the AWB.  For example, semiautomatic AR-15s and AK-47s are quite common, along with a host of other types.  AR-15s are essentially the semiautomatic version of the military’s M-16 and are now widely used for hunting and target shooting.

It seems that firearms are probably not Barack Obama’s top item of concern - but the fact remains that both he, and the people supposedly checking the facts, remain woefully ignorant of reality.  Anything can be an “assault rifle” or “armor piercing” or even “change” - but without actual facts to back it up, it’s just more of the same dog-and-pony show.

“To the extent that 33 regulations such as those in place in California reduce any deleterious effects of gun shows, one might expect to detect a larger effect in a relatively unregulated state such as Texas. Our results, however, provide no evidence to suggest that gun shows lead to a substantial increase in the number of homicides or suicides in either California or Texas,” said U-M professor Brian Jacob, head of the Ford School’s Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy.

Like Michigan, California requires background checks for all gun buyers and a multiday waiting period to obtain the firearm. The wait in Michigan is three days and 10 days in California. Texas has no similar regulations.

In fact, it seems that homicide rates in Texas actually declined slightly following the gun shows.  This has relevance for states that seek tighter regulations, and particularly measures that have gained more national attention.  For example, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has, in the past, indicated support for more restrictions on firearms shows on the unproven basis that it would somehow make people “safer”.  However, this research will tend to bring up the question as to whether those types of laws can actually be proven to work effectively, and may create an impetus for gun control advocates to back up their own proposed measures with actual facts.

Although there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of patrons at gun shows and stores are individuals with no criminal history.  The cars, firearms and tools used in crimes are typically stolen, not purchased.  Ridiculous rules piled onto law-abiding citizens are redundant and onerous, while the crimes that make these laws so popular among the uninformed are not taken seriously.  It’s unclear why we should all suffer for the mistakes of a few irresponsible individuals who won’t be stopped by laws of any type.

LifeNews.com has profiled the Obama radio ads and how they wrongly indicated McCain is against stem cell research and ignored the success of adult stem cells. We have also covered McCain’s response in his own radio ads.

FactCheck agrees and says, “An Obama-Biden radio ad hammers McCain for being opposed to stem cell research. Not true.”

“Meanwhile two spots from the McCain-Palin campaign, together with the Republican National Committee, describe McCain’s support for the research; they’re largely accurate,” FactCheck says.

This is apparently an attempt by Obama to confuse moderate conservatives, many of whom favor stem-cell research.  Many Republicans were also swayed by Nancy Reagan’s support for stem-cell research to help treat Alzheimer’s, as Ronald Reagan was afflicted with the condition.  Stem treatments could also go a long way towards treating a wide variety of other diseases and may help to make many incidents of abortion and euthanasia unnecessary.

This needs to be addressed by the McCain campaign and the information corrected for issue voters who feel strongly about it.  Obama should probably stick to something he knows well, like vaguely undefined promises of hope.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a socially conservative group, is calling for pastors to step forward on September 28 and preach an old-fashioned election sermon.  In its press release dated September 9, spokesperson Alan Sears wrote:

“On Pulpit Freedom Sunday, pastors from 20 states will reclaim their constitutional right. From the pulpit, they will advise their congregation what scripture says about today’s issues apply those issues to the candidates standing for election just like their forefathers did for 150 years.”

Though it may seem counterintuitive to many conservative Christians, the principal of separation of church and state primarily benefits the church, which is the less powerful entity in this relationship.  Church and state is a two-way street, and if one can pass, then the other will as well.  Religious groups in the United States currently have an incredible degree of leeway in managing their own affairs, found in few other instances in the world except for semi-autonomous political regions.  Common sense would suggest that they would be best served by maintaining that level of autonomy.

As 501(c)3 groups, churches don’t have to pay taxes and are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.  They may allow people to live in large, church-sponsored communities (again, free of taxation), and operate their own businesses (often tax-free) that provide income to the larger organization.  They can run their own schools, operate vehicle fleets, lease out huge tracts of commercial real estate and run any form of media.  There’s nothing that prohibits them from even maintaining their own security forces.  Churches often send large groups of people abroad, sometimes to quasi-combat zones, on missions to affect social and religious change.

That all sounds perfectly fine to most Americans, as well it should.  These are familiar roles for churches, particularly large ones, in carrying out their stated goals.  Getting involved in politics, however, is an entirely different story.  Thousands of years of history (with Christianity, Judaism, and others) shows that this brings government intrusion into the church, which is exactly where it does not belong.  America was founded on freedom of religion - persecution by the politically powerful is why the Pilgrims originally left England in such a hurry.

Moreover, this doesn’t prohibit freedom of speech by any individual.  Ministers have always been able to make their political views known like anyone else; they just can’t use the church’s tax-exempt facilities for that purpose.  Parishioners can certainly discuss matters among themselves, and most churches will “recognize” candidates that visit during election time.  Going too far beyond this is asking for trouble and tends to call into question whether the church is still a church, or needs to register its own Political Action Committee.

We’re voting for Sarah Palin’s ability to possibly step in as President - not her children, or even as an approval of her parenting skills.  Bristol is old enough to make her own decisions and logically her actions should not reflect on her mother, who has widely and publicly affirmed her socially conservative ideals.

For better or worse, the Palins are very much unlike the executive families we’ve seen from previous administrations - and, for that matter, the Obamas.  Palin does not have an Ivy League education, her kids go to ordinary public schools and her husband works a blue-collar job.  Her son is going to Iraq - not as an officer, but as a regular enlistee in an infantry brigade.  The Palins very much reflect the reality of the average American citizen, not an ideal JFK camelot charade perpetuated by image consultants.

The nation’s top greeting card company has decided to roll out a line of new “same-sex wedding” cards. The designs include a card with two tuxedos, and others with overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers. These cards come several months after Hallmark issued a “coming out” line of cards.

“It’s our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can,” Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.