"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry

Some of the discussion in the news concerns the difference in "values" and whatnot between the "red" and "blue" states and I was thinking of writing a little about that. However, a reader sent the article posted below to me. After I read it, I was surprised to see that I wrote it four years ago. I think it is still pertinent, so here it is again:

Out of the mouth of children, as they say, comes some heartbreaking truths. This time it was high school students. But never mind, the concept holds. Also, apparently all American Government classes are not taught by socialist leaning teachers.

There was a class of forty students. The students were broken down into four groups of ten. Each group was to have a few days to work on a "special" project and not to consult with anyone in any other group until the results were presented in class.

What the four groups did not know is that each group was provided the same New York Times election results map dated 11/9/00. Their task, then, was to look up as much information (other than the same election results already indicated) as possible about the different colored areas and attempt to define why the presidential vote turned out as it did.

When I first looked at the map, I thought that should be rather easy -- in generalities, anyway. However the kids went a lot more in depth, and some got rather specific on a few items.

The map is somewhat like the famous USA Today red/blue map. Areas for Bush are colored red. The few counties that went for Gore are colored blue.

Most noticed by the students was that the "blue" areas had the most environmental problems. Many blue areas included large metropolitan areas. And nearly half of the nation's serious crime was reported to be in the blue areas -- which stands to reason if they have the largest congestion. Single parent families are about three times greater in the blue areas than the red.

But, looking deeper one sees some interesting statistics that do not necessarily follow the increase in crime. Most school districts in the blue areas spend a great deal more per student than school districts in the red areas. Yet, overall, the scholastic abilities of the average students in the blue areas are not as good as those attending school in the red. Also, some blue areas have an average or above average per capita income. There were, however, a number of interesting exceptions in both areas.

Two of the groups attempted to show that the city and county governments in the blue areas tended to be very liberal. We would guess that anyway, of course. But, that case was not proven conclusively.

So, where are we going with this? Nowhere, actually. Because it is just common sense that schools in liberal areas do not teach as well as schools in conservative areas. One reason is that liberal teachers tend to be too permissive and undisciplined classrooms are not conducive to learning.[1] Permissive cultures lead to teen pregnancies, large school drop-out rates and hence, more crime.

Conversely, most conservative communities will not allow that vicious circle to get started. In low crime areas, police do not have much to do and so can pay close attention to misbehavior by teens that would be overlooked in busy urban areas. Teachers usually keep strict discipline in the classroom. And children go home to a family atmosphere that will insure they get their homework done. Parents and police both tend to work to insure kids are at home by a reasonable hour.

Many of these differences are very obvious, too.In Detroit, kids feel free to backtalk anyone, often with a very nasty choice of words. It's not uncommon to see nine or ten year old kids running the streets well after midnight. And, 60% of the children born are to unwed mothers. I have personally been in two homes with five generations of women and children on welfare -- homes where no adult male ever lived.

In a rather rural "red" area, none of that is [usually] evident. The kids who are not doing well in school are helped. There are some people on welfare, but it is often obvious that they need to be. Kids out too late get stopped by police. All crime and/or disturbances are investigated. Everything may not need to go to court, but it gets "handled" somehow, nonetheless. Transients are watched. Not hassled, just watched. And, more recently, there is even an "officer friendly" outside greeting the kids at the schools as they arrive and leave school via school busses.

So it's no surprise that life is more pleasant in the "red" areas of the country. Conservative people tend to be rather self-sufficient. They usually do not like government interference in much of anything. And, in a nutshell, that is exactly why Bush won the election. Most Americans hoped Dubya would tend to make government back off and leave us alone. We know for sure that Gore would do just the opposite -- and work to make the whole of the country like the blue zones.

I have no idea if the teacher was surprised and impressed by those lesson results. But I sure was. Those high school kids did quite a lot of very good research, the quality of which would have been at the university master's degree level just a few years ago. And, not only did they get it right, they realized the significance of what they found with no adult prompting.

1. <http://www.rense.com/general10/bullies.htm>

One result of the terrorist threats is a steady business in the gun shops. Many thousands of Americans have been purchasing their first weapon, then wondering about all the little associated problems -- like, what to do with it.

That handgun is designed to kill people. That's about it. Other than acting as a paperweight in the "in box," there's not much else it can do effectively.

On the other hand, handguns have a lot in common with other tools, such as a chain saw or automobiles. All can kill people when used improperly. All require some specific knowledge to operate properly. And, we should never allow little kids access to any of them unless under strict supervision.

Some people teach kids to drive at a very young age -- I learned when I was twelve. Even more Americans teach their children to shoot at a young age. Personally, I helped teach some Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts a few decades ago. The fact is, in many areas of the country, it is common to see young boys, not yet old enough to drive, carrying guns around. We did, as kids.

Shooting should be a family affair. Children need not learn to shoot with dad's 357 magnum, or even a 9mm. The trusty 22 is available for that and I still own the original Ruger 22 semiautomatic handgun that was evidently designed with young kids in mind. Still today, neighbor men borrow that Ruger to teach their sons and daughters to shoot safely. My only requirement is that they also make care and cleaning of the pistol a part of that training.

It is not just our right to protect home and family, it is also our duty. Police are spread thin in most communities and usually stay busy. We are our own first line of defense.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal in "Only Guns Can Stop Terrorists," Professor John R. Lott, Jr. reported: "States that pass concealed handgun laws experience drops in violent crimes, especially in multiple victim shootings -- the type of attack most associated with terrorism. Bill Landes and I found that deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80% after states passed right-to-carry laws."[1]

In some areas of the country, some men sometimes openly carry handguns. For many reasons, I prefer concealed carry, but that is my personal preference. Nonetheless, those who carry openly make a very good point. They want potential terrorists and other types of misbehaving cretins to know that any type of threatened violence will be met with immediate force.

The liberals, of course, get all bent out of shape about either open or concealed carry. However, both are allowed in many areas of the country, so there is nothing the liberal gun grabbers can do about it -- other than whine.

John Lott reports a self-evident fact: "It's harder to victimize armed citizens." Now that more than 30 states issue concealed carry permits for almost anyone who wants one and takes the training, there are millions of good Americans who are often both armed and well trained. Which means, there is also likely to be a number of good armed Americans able to respond in an emergency. This could be a rather significant surprise, and deterrent, for a would-be terrorist.

The average citizen cannot do much of anything to stop the use of aircraft as bombs, of course. Still, there are a number of other things we all can and should do -- such as pay attention to what is happening around us. If something happens that is too unusual and out of place, call it in and let the armed men who also have badges investigate the situation.

Because, even though millions of good citizens may be armed today, they are also trained to understand that there are very few instances when they may actually legally use their weapons. The protection of self, family and others nearby from instant harm is one instance. But, that's about it.

Everything else is police work. And to initiate that, the legal weapon of choice is still the telephone.

So why are we walking around armed? Because, as Professor John R. Lott, Jr. reported: "States that pass concealed handgun laws experience drops in violent crimes, especially in multiple victim shootings." As many studies show, when honest citizens, competent with weapons, are walking about armed, all of society benefits. It is as simple as that.

1. <http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001226>

One useful fact all Americans should keep in mind is that they have no "right" to be protected by the police. American police are reactive, not proactive. They don't usually "prevent" crime. They catch lawbreakers after they have committed a crime.

This was by design of the Founding Fathers. Because, as we see today with the anti-terrorism laws, in order to "prevent" crime, police would need all sorts of obnoxious powers that would trample all over our rights of life, liberty and property.

Instead, Americans were intended to have the means of self defense. Put another way, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to restrict American citizens from keeping and bearing arms. Rather, the Second Amendment clearly instructs those in government that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers #46: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Jefferson also recognized the need for citizens to be armed: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." (Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

As late as the 1960s, members of Congress agreed that the American people have an inherent right to keep and bear arms. Even the most liberal Democrats recognized that right: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

That was Senator Hubert H. Humphrey[1], later to become Vice President under L.B. Johnson.

Even in the 1980s, Senators were grudgingly admitting that a private citizen has the right to own and carry firearms. According to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chairman, in the Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982): "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

So, what happened? If these Senators knew perfectly well that the American people have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, why did they turn tail and allow all those unconstitutional gun control laws to be enacted? Or, perhaps we should ask: Why is there no punishment for those lawmakers, judges and bureaucrats who knowingly and intentionally violate the Constitution? Are they now above our Constitution?

Anyway, there is a very interesting story behind the federal gun control scheme. Over the years, some have said that the federal gun control laws smelled a lot like the old Nazi gun control laws. And, maybe they do.

Apparently, the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 has quite a lot in common with the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

One popular gun rights group looked up the old Nazi law and compared it with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. As they report:

"Members of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) consider 'gun control' to be an aggressive cancer. JPFO has a cure, a way to destroy 'gun control'. JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68). Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it. In 'Gun Control': Gateway to Tyranny we present the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English. Even more deadly: a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the GCA '68 with the Nazi Weapons Law. If you have this in your hands, no one can tell you that you're imagining things."

JPFO is hopping mad about this, as we all should be. They present evidence and name the names of those in government who spearheaded this treacherous nonsense. Some people named are still on Capitol Hill.

For a great outline of the story (and names), visit the JPFO web site.[2] If you are interested in Constitutional issues and your right as an American to keep and bear arms, you will find this page very interesting.

Then comes the problem: How do we correct it?

1. "Know Your Lawmakers," Guns Magazine, February 1960

2. <http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm>

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron330.htm. Revised 12-18-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.