Wednesday, December 28, 2005

A Lesson From California

I have long thought that California is the most screwed up state, and I now even have more proof. The other day I read about Proposition H, a San Francisco ordinance that would prohibit the owning of handguns within San Francisco. Somehow, this isn't seen as a violation of the Second Amendment either.

Ownership of firearms is a right required in order to keep all other rights. Without the right to bear arms, there is nothing protecting your rights besides trust that the government will not abuse its power. If you can't own guns, and the government can, that is oppression. The government can do whatever they want to do, and you have no way to defend yourself.

When the second amendment was created, the framers of the Constitution had tyranny in mind. They weren't thinking about home invaders, like we do today. They didn't sit there and argue about the legality of shooting a criminal inside your own home. They realized that there must be some rights in place for the defense of all other rights. The second amendment does just this. It protects all our other rights, and gives us the freedom to defend ourselves as well. But we must remember that it is there to protect our rights.

If you take it away, or at least enforce it to the point where it is a non-existent right, then you have eliminated a protection for our rights. We should be able to trust our government, but I don't. A certain breed of politicians is out to destroy America, while claiming to protect our rights. These people believe in taking away gun control, but believe we should have every other right. Also, they believe we shouldn't be able to kill in self-defense, but it's okay for them to murder their children just because they don't want them.

One argument by supporters of gun control is that the government needs guns to protect us, so we don't. That is fine for them, but what if I want to defend myself? I should at least be able to have the means to defend myself in case the government fails. After all, they can't have a police officer with you wherever you go, and we have seen the way our government has brilliantly managed many projects.

The purpose of government is to defend us. Sometimes, rights must be restricted slightly so that your liberties don't infringe on the liberties of others. This is the basis for law. In a perfect government, you should be able to shoot a gun all you want, as long as you do not harm someone else or their property. Instead, our government feels the need to regulate what weapons we can have, how we can handle them, and where we can shoot them. This isn't their job. They have one job, which they still can't seem to grasp.

A government should defend its citizens. This is done on a local level through police and the National Guard, and on a world level through the armed forces. Yet, we can't have a police car and a tank follow every single person in America. Crime is bound to happen. Criminals will always exist, and they will always be ready to strike when no one is looking. We must have methods of defending ourselves, even if the government already tries too.

Hopefully, more people will realize that the very people they choose to represent them are failing. Any politician who seeks to take away all the rights of the people he represents by taking away their right to defend themselves should not be holding office in the first place. Unfortunately, these people do hold office. And they have a much larger agenda than just banning guns. More of their goals will be covered shortly, but it should already be clear that America's greatest enemy comes from within.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Bush's Address To The Nation

I wish everyone could have seen President Bush's address to the nation. He told us what we haven't heard in a while. Even though the media and many of our own leaders want us to think that this war is another Vietnam, that it has been an excessive loss of money and lives, and that we have accomplished nothing, we are winning. That was the smallest summary. We are winning, and we will continue to do whatever we need to until terrorism is no longer a threat.

Bush repeated reality to his critics. He (again) stated that he got us into this war, that it was his decision, and he stands behind it. Even though we might have been wrong about WMDs, Saddam was still supporting terrorism, menacing his people, and remained a threat to the world. Even today, he is still a threat, he just no longer has the power to menace his people directly. On a side note, isn't it ironic how in the United States, the defeatists consider an assault rifle a WMD, but it has to be a nuclear/biological device in order to be a WMD in Iraq?

Bush also showed why we are winning. The people just held their first elections, something the media hasn't really covered. I didn't see that much of it in my newspaper, at least. The people are more united than ever, and even if we are skeptical on the progress in Iraq, they believe that they are doing better than they were under Saddam's rule, and that things will continue to improve. This is what counts. The people we are helping are grateful for us saving their world, even if we aren't.

He also hinted that this war won't stop at Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism remains a threat to the world, and ignoring it just encourages it to do more. It is better that we keep terrorists on the defensive, in their countries, then have them on the offensive in our own. They remain cowards in their tactics, but they realize that they themselves are losing. The elections show that they have lost all support of their people, and are hated by all. They are the scourge of the world, but most are too afraid to strike them down. But we aren't. We are the only ones who will stand up against evil, and years later, we will be remembered for our efforts.

We will see plenty of hypocrisy along the way. The media will now go on praising the elections, after months of doubt and messages to run away from the war. When the war is finally one, all the defeatists in Congress will try and take credit for what has happened. Even though they have tried to destroy their own country, when chosen to represent us, they will try to take credit for what they have not done. Just one unfortunate side effect of the war.

Bush also thanked those who served. Not in a media way, where they are used to promote the anti-war propaganda, but an honest thank you. He thanked all who have played a part in the war effort, for what they have already done, and what they will continue to do. 2006 will be another great year for our country. Another year of killing terrorists and spreading democracy.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Word Verification is On

Due to a new wave of comment spam, I am turning on letter verification for posts. Just a little heads up. And as for the spammers themselves, I'll see what I can do to them.

Better Airport Security Through Freedom

Airport security has always worried many people, and there doesn't seem to be a definite solution. Air marshals work well for flights they are on (at least in theory, this luckily hasn't been tested), but you can't put an air marshal on every plane a terrorist could use. And since we have realized that they can also attack buses, trains, and subways, that's just more we need to worry about. Isn't there some better solution, that also could be cheaper.

What better solution than freedom? Increased freedom might not sound like a bright way to stop terrorists, but in fact it is. The freedom I am referring to here is the second amendment. What if citizens were allowed to defend themselves should they need to, instead of praying that a marshal is with them? I am sure that there are many people who would be willing to carry a gun with them on a plane.

Sure, this opens a security hole. What is to stop a terrorist from bringing his gun on the plane? First, there is the logic that one or more other passengers will have a gun, and will be able to stop the terrorist. But if several terrorists get together, then there is a problem. So instead, why not place some minor restrictions on the people allowed to carry guns?

First off, a list of trusted persons could be established. Anyone who owns a handgun could request to become a trusted person. They would have to pass a shooting test to make sure that they would be able to do their job if they need to without harming other passengers. A background check could also be performed to make sure that Jihad Joe isn't applying to become a trusted person right after his mysterious six month visit to Pakistan.

This program probably wouldn't cost that much, at least compared to the cost of air marshals. Air marshals might still be needed on the planes where a trusted person isn't a passenger, but why not take it a step further? Arm the crew. But before we can think about that idea, we must defeat the liberal logic.

First off, why would the crew want to do this? Why not give them a minor raise if they carry a handgun and are proficient with it? The airline doesn't even have to give them the money. It can come from the government. It has to be a lot cheaper to pay a little more to a pilot or a stewardess than to hire an air marshal. This probably works a lot better, especially for the pilot.

If a terrorist wanted to crash a plane into something, he would need to be flying it. If the pilot has a gun, he can shoot the terrorist right as he attempts to enter the cockpit. It would be very hard to miss from that range. And in the case where a passenger does get hit in a shootout, that's still not as bad as the whole plane going down in flames because no one could stop a single terrorist who smuggled a knife or handgun on board.

Better security through freedom. I like the idea of it, but unfortunately the left, the sworn defenders of American liberties, don't like it. I forgot that it's a great right to be able to kill your children because you don't want them, but that it's a horrible thing for a trustworthy citizen to be assigned a gun. And trying to find all the background information about a person is a violation of their freedoms, unless they are buying a gun, of course.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

A Hypothetical Situation

The following is a hypothetical situation. The incident described has never happened, and is being created just to prove a point.

At a convention center in Berlin, a group of terrorists perform a stunning daylight raid, kidnapping several politicians who were planning to speak that day. The group killed any bodyguards or security personnel, and sped off towards some unknown destination. Along the way, they shot several police officers attempting to pursue them.

Later that day, links were discovered to a website for a terrorist group. The group, calling itself The Shield of Liberty, claimed responsibility for the kidnapping. They released several photos showing the politicians handcuffed and dressed in makeshift prison uniforms. The website demanded that a set of economic policies be put in place, or else they would execute the politicians within the next week.

As German forces rushed to come up with some plan, more acts of violence continued. A string of unsolved drive-by shootings and bombings was now traced to the group, and media attention was put on the incident, hoping to draw more clues and bolster international support.

Investigators soon realized that a French dignitary and his aides were captured along with the politicians. France was alerted, and their embassy promised to do whatever was needed in order to ensure the release of their dignitary. As German forces rushed to come up with a strategy, people began asking questions.

“Where is France? They said they would help us!” “We need the help of the world right now! Why are they so selfish?” “Can't anyone come to our needs?” “Where is the United States? Aren't they so committed to making the world a better place?” “Can the UN work to resolve these issues?”

As the deadline approached for the drafting of the policies, it became clear that there was still no clear plan for the release of the hostages. Their location was not known, it was theorized that the group had fled Germany and was setting up headquarters somewhere else. People became furious, demanding more.

The media pushed the German Army to assist somehow. They couldn't come up with any more ways they could help, but demanded more assistance. The panic continued until the deadline was met, and graphic videos of the execution were released not only on the website of the group, but on several community portals they were associated with, such as news sites.

In the aftermath, everyone became increasing angry with Germany. They felt their country had done nothing, even though they had done all they could do. They began to find some scapegoat, may it be an official, an agency, or a country. Eventually, the incident was past, and the people figured that nothing like this would ever happen again.

I shouldn't have to explain the meaning behind this story. Pretend it was taking place in Iraq instead of Germany. Four peacekeepers from various countries were captured instead of foreign dignitaries and politicians. The world did not help the Iraqis, or the United States, which committed itself to assisting the Iraqis in their struggle for freedom. The rest of the world stood still, when the problems were plaguing them too. And of course, we didn't have the European attitude completely, it was some liberal politicians who insisted we pull out and still solve these things at the same time.

Friday, December 02, 2005

An Even Simpler Plan For Iraq

Can it get much more difficult than this? I have presented some very simple thoughts on how to pull out of Iraq and when.
  • Troops must stay with Iraqi Army and Police units until the units have been determined to be ready for combat without American assistance. The standards for this must first be set, although experience is probably the best standard. If a combat group can handle themselves in combat, they should be ready to go.

  • Once the forces of Iraq have proved themselves capable, they will be deployed throughout Iraq. At this point, United States forces will focus on a few select areas for major troop deployment, with more peaceful areas getting outposts. At this point, soldiers will begin to be sent home.

  • After major trouble spots are extinguished, or at least under control, the major American troop deployments in these areas will be decreased to the point of outposts.

  • An American presence will be continued, so that it does not give the notion that the United States is giving up or pulling out. Troops shall remained stationed in order to show that the United States is fully committed to the future of Iraq.

  • When ready, all outposts will migrate to a central base. This way an American deployment can be kept ready should anything arise. Also, so that when we have to go to other Middle Eastern countries to bring democracy, we will have a forward base to operate from.

  • No date-specific time table will be set up for withdrawal of American forces. A complete withdrawal is out of the question. A garrison will remain at all time. The table for major withdrawal from Iraq will be set based on specific goals, like I have just done.

  • It ain't over 'till its over.

How can it be harder than this, folks? It took me maybe ten minutes to figure this out. It should satisfy the liberal whining, since they now have goals set up to withdraw, and it ensures everyone who cares about their country has enough time to grt the job done.