People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, October 09, 2011

Guns Don't Kill People

But their presence sure prevents violent crime from occurring.

Two sets of stats (in graph form for better comprehension of trends).  The first,* an area graph that shows how state gun laws - specifically related to "shall carry" - have eased up over recent years (the puke green), and more restrictive laws that ban it have declined dramatically (in red):

Notice the trend - from 1986 to the present (who was president in 1986?)-  toward more and more governments allowing the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Put that trend up against this one** - violent crime rates in the U.S. - using nearly the same date range:

You can click on either graph to better analyze them.

The point?  As gun possession in the public square has become more ubiquitous, violent crimes have declined precipitately.

Causation?  Correlation?  Happenstance?

Take your pick and argue away.  Crime is down.  And that's a good thing.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-- Adolf Hitler, 1935 --

* From "Every Picture Tells A Story."

** From "The State of the USA."

Think Those 'Occupy Wall Street' Demonstrators Aren't Weird?

Check out this effort at an Atlanta demonstration (one formed to coincide with the doings in New York City) to seek "consensus" from a sizable crowd of clueless teenagers and professional malcontents to allow Democratic Congressman John Lewis - who was surely there to voice his support for their effort - to speak to the assembled mass of human waste:

Because the assemblage could not find unanimity (everyone had to agree?), Lewis eventually turned and left.


One must imagine that this gaggle of idiots is still chanting away because consensus can't be reached for everyone to give it up and go back to the asylum.

Does Obama Even Consider Himself To Be My President Too?

One wonders with the way he attacks me and my kind - conservative Americans all - at every turn.

Peter Wehner, writing in Commentary, wonders too:
Obama the Divider

A Washington Post story from earlier this week reports, “There is a noticeably more aggressive, confrontational President Obama roaming the country these days, selling his jobs plan and attacking Republicans for standing in the way of progress by standing up only for the rich.” That report, if anything, understates things a bit. Obama has essentially given up on his governing responsibilities (at which he has shown himself to be terribly inept) in lieu of a fierce and near constant attack on his political opponents. I have my doubts as to whether that strategy will work. But the point I want to make is a different one, which is that Obama has become the most intentionally divisive president we’ve seen in quite some time.

Each day, it seems, he and/or his supporters are seeking to divide us. The rhetoric employed by the president and his allies is meant to fan the flames of resentment, to turn Americans against one another, and to stoke up feelings of envy, grievances, and rage.

This is not healthy for our country or good for our political culture. And while we all contribute to what constitutes public discourse, there is one officeholder, the president, who bears the greatest responsibility for creating a sense of common purpose and for reminding us that we are, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Yet the president is trying, with almost every speech, to pry us apart. It’s a strategy he clearly believes is necessary for him to win re-election. But that doesn’t make what he’s doing any less shameful or any less hypocritical. [link]
Over the last two centuries, a president, when he referred to "they," he was referencing our then-enemies - the British, the Indians, the Japanese, for a time southerners, Nazis, the commies - but today, when Obama attacks "they," he's lobbing hand grenades at me.  And a majority of other Americans.  On a daily basis.

Can he think of me as being not one of US?  Apparently.

Well, it won't be for the better, but two - or two million - or 200 million - can play that game.

America will be ripped apart because of it, but it's the game this guy wants to play.

A challenge we're prepared to engage.

Sad.  But it's the reality of the day.

Lessons Learned About Prohibition

I happened to watch the 3-part Ken Burns PBS documentary in recent days simply entitled "Prohibition."  It's quintessential Burns.  And therefore I recommend it to everyone who has an interest in our history.

And an interest in our present.

If you understand how the federal government tried - and failed - to stop people from drinking booze in the 20's and early 30's, you know how the government's war on marijuana is going - and going to to end.

I read things like this - "Feds crack down on Calif. pot" - and wonder if "the feds" don't have something better to do.

And - big picture - what those feds thought they accomplished.

A significant percentage of America will be breaking "the law" today.  And they'll be enjoying doing it.  A law that, therefore, serves no purpose.

Give it up.  Make it legal.  Take the mystique out of it.  And let the federal government do what it's better equipped to do.

- - -

Oddly, I read this New York Times article about Burns's documentary in which its columnist, Neil Genzlinger,  comes away with a lesson learned too.  A lesson he'd have a tough time defending, if you ask me.

Prohibition, to most of us historians, proved to not prohibit anything.

To Genzlinger the lesson learned is this: It's a matter of "extremism that sabotages itself by refusing to compromise."   Read John Boehner and his conservative friends.

Say What?

I Love Those Who Reason With The Constitution

I'll be honest. When I started reading "I support the 3rd Amendment, and I vote," I was asking myself, What, again, is the 3rd amendment?

Oh, yeah, it's this one:

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Why on earth would that matter to anyone who's not 220 years old and hasn't had to deal with British soldiers seizing your bedroom for their use without your permission?

Well, there is an application, as it turns out, to the debate that still ensues over the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.  You know, the one that sent liberals ballistic because our highest court ruled that corporations - as a collection of like-minded and like-purposed individuals - have speech rights like individuals do.

To find that link, scroll down to the comments section succeeding the article.  And you'll see this from a Ted Bell:
Funny thing is it’s the third amendment that I use when arguing against Moonbats who rant about how bad it is for corporations to be considered an individual as laid out in Citizens United. I tell them to imagine you own a small business with a nice little store. One day you’re at work and a military officer walks in. He hands you an order signed by George W Bush (always their nemesis) saying that the Army is taking over your store and their [sic] are going to use it to house Army troops. Think Citizens United is wrong? Fine- your store has no constitutional rights and all you can do is hand the keys over to the Army officer, go to McDonalds and ask them for a job application.

Long live the Third Amendment!
If corporations have no right to free speech, they have no right to prevent military seizure and occupation for the purpose of housing soldiers.  Which flies directly in the face of the 3rd Amendment.

Unless the numbskulls on the Left are willing to argue that it too applies only to individuals and their homes, and the seizure of business establishments is acceptable.  Which should make the ACLU a bit queasy and every liberal ashamed of himself.


Hey, Look

The Washington Post has hired a new - liberal - columnist.

How ... diverse.

Someone needs to help me understand how adding another Holstein to the herd of Holsteins makes the herd more vibrant.

Herman Cain, A Man To Be Reckoned With

Much has been written about the oratory skills of one Barack Obama. Personally, I never thought they were all that great.

This is great.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain at the "Values Voters Summit":

And his message resonates with every conservative in the land.

I think we've got something here.