Protection

What word just jumped into your head when you saw the title of this post? Contraceptives? Seatbelts? A locked door? Rubber gloves? A gun?

The reason I ask is this:
Most common forms of protection are a combination of safety tools and mental attitude. Federal and State government agencies encourage people to have first aid kits, a three days supply of food and water and various other safety items at home or in their cars so that in the event of a disaster they can save themselves. Most people think it a good idea to wear a seat belt while riding in automobiles, to wear condoms if having casual sex and to lock their homes and vehicles. Why is it that these preventative measures and safety devices are so widely accepted yet other personal protection items such as hand guns and weapons are deemed wrong? This makes no sense! For some reason, however, a lot of people feel that a weapon is never a safety device and is instead only a tool of aggression.

The funny thing is, most people are ok with law enforcement personnel and soldiers carrying guns for protection. Our society willingly spends trillions of dollars arming and training law enforcement and military personnel, as if they are somehow different than us mere civilians and have a greater right to protect themselves. It is ok for them to shoot a bad guy before the bad guy hurts them, but many feel it is wrong for ordinary people to defend their own lives in this same manner.

Why is it that when an individual decides to add a weapon to their collection of safety equipment, many other people get uncomfortable? Why is it that we prosecute a person if they refuse to protect themselves with a seatbelt or helmet and we also prosecute them if they carry a firearm to protect themselves? In both cases, the motive is protection and the items in question are safety equipment.

PLEASE don’t answer that the other types of safety equipment can’t be used to harm people. With a little imagination, a person could bludgeon someone with a steering wheel locking device, restrain them with seat belt webbing, gag them with bandages, torture them with lit road flares and jumper cables and then finish them off with a fire axe or some other common safety device. Absolutely ANYTHING can be used for both good and bad purposes, depending on the intent of the user. Nevertheless, many people have an irrational belief that some safety devices will only be used for good and others will only be used for bad. Cars, knives and other everyday items have been used in massacres, just as guns have been used to prevent countless crimes.

Defense is a sacred right and handguns and other weapons are safety tools designed to uphold that right. The second amendment to the US constitution affirms that right, and over eighty million of your fellow citizens exercise that right. Why not be one of us and help make the world a safer place?

TFS Magnum Blog

I just stumbled across a blog that I thoroughly enjoyed reading and thought I would share it with the world. It features a pro-libertarian, pro-gun, pro-self defense and pro-common sense take on current events and political affairs. Click on the title of this post and give TFS Magnum a try and hopefully you will enjoy it as much as I did.

Where did the explosives go?

Click on the above title for a must read Washington Times article about what happened to the missing 380 tons of explosives that Kerry has been ranting about.

In short, this article makes a strong case that our Russian "allies" (who were opposed to us going to Iraq) swooped in before US forces ever arrived and transported the explosives to Syria while on a mission to dispose of any evidence linking them to Iraq's rapidly growing arsenal.

Read the story for more details. If it turns out to be true, there could be all kinds of serious consequences both for the upcoming election and for international relations. If this is true, it will be interesting to see Kerry try to wriggle out of his past stance that we should have solicited and pandered for Russia's support. If it is correct, it also kills the idea that terrorists stole the weapons out from under our incompetent noses because this took place before we arrived at the site.

Something else to think about:
If this sort of thing was going on and our various allies were making weapons and paperwork disappear, perhaps there were some WMD's that suffered a similar fate. It would be interesting to find out if Russia, France and/or others who were milking the "oil for food" program, selling weapons and taking kickbacks had something do with the absence of WMDs. While WMD's were never the heart of the Iraq issue for me, they have been at the forefront of US politics and articles like this make you wonder just how much our UN "allies" may have been contributing to the problem.

Crime, Punishment and Disgust

In order to make society safer and save the cost of repeatedly trying and punishing the same people, many states have enacted “3 Strikes” laws. Each time a criminal commits a serious offense that is classified as a “strike” (usually any felony), their jail sentences are significantly increased, both as a deterrent and to keep repeat offenders off the street. For over a decade California has had one of the harshest 3 strikes laws in the US and all felonies are considered strikes. A criminal convicted of any felony or “strike” must serve 85% of their sentence prior to becoming eligible for parole. A criminal convicted of a second strike offense automatically has their sentence doubled. A third strike conviction gets them a minimum 25 years to life sentence.

Under California’s three strikes program, crime has dropped 45% and is down to 1965 levels.

Disgustingly, over 60% of likely voters in California are preparing to vote yes on a proposition that will cripple our three strikes law. Supporters of this proposition feel that it is cruel and unfair to impose harsh sentences for all felonies and that it’s time to reclassify many felonies as non-strike offenses. If proposition 66 passes, a person could do ALL of the following (and more) and still not be charged with a third strike offense:

• Break into your home and steal your belongings
• Burn down your office, forestland and other property
• Make Criminal Threats against you
• Commit felony gang crimes

Supporters of proposition 66 claim they are doing it because they don’t think a person should be sentenced to 25 years to life if their third crime is something minor. Stop and think about that for a minute. How many felonies do you think of as “minor”? According to the dictionary, a felony is:

One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor.

Imagine that someone has previously been convicted of two felonies and has two strikes against them. This same criminal then goes out and commits the felony of burning down your office while you are away. Current law would lock that criminal up and throw away the key. Proposition 66 would mean that the felonious act of burning down your house would not be severe enough to warrant a 3rd strike. You see, proposition 66 requires that a third strike offense be a violent one. The criminal has to hurt somebody in order for it to count as a third strike.

Pro-hype about proposition 66 includes things like “We can send someone to prison for the rest of their life for stealing food” and other such nonsense. The fact is, there are virtually no cases of a third strike being something as minor as shoplifting food or other minor crimes). It’s not very easy for a person to be convicted of a strike offense, and they have numerous chances for leniency. The District Attorney, the judge and various appeals courts can all reduce the crime to something less egregious than a strike offense. In about one third of eligible 3rd strike cases, the District Attorney or judge exercises this power and reduces the offense to a non-strike case. Thus, the typical person convicted of a strike offense is a very socially destructive individual. Many convicted felons they have committed numerous other crimes before being caught and successfully convicted of a strike offense. Two thirds of all 3rd strike offenders have been convicted of a violent offense, burglary or committing a crime with a weapon.

As far as I’m concerned, if a criminal has already been convicted of two previous felony strike offenses, we should be able jail them just for passing gas in a crowded elevator. I have no sympathy for them. It takes a LOT to get two strike convictions, and if the stupid sociopaths haven’t learned their lesson after their first two stints in prison, I see no reason not to lock them up and throw away the key when they commit yet another crime, even if it's not an outrageously severe one.

Another pro proposition 66 argument is that it will save the sate money by saving us the cost of keeping people in prison. The reality is, it will cost the state a fortune when these released criminals go out and commit more crimes. Law enforcement and judicial costs in finding and punishing criminals is substanial, not to mention the cost to their victims. Two million Californians were spared victim status, $28.5 billion in pain, suffering and damage was saved and still no new prisons were built during the time in which the three strikes system has been in affect, according to http://www.threestrikes.org/.

The consequences of passing proposition 66 is likely to include the early release of 4,000 3rd strike offenders. Because of an ambiguity in proposition 66 that says sentence reductions are not limited to third strikers, 26,000 prisoners throughout the state could be released early. Here are a few of the people that could be released.

If in spite of the above information, you still haven't decided to vote "No" on proposition 66, take a look at who supports and who opposes it.

Chief Supporter:
Gary Keenan has spent $1.56 million dollars of his own money funding the effort to get Proposition 66 on the ballot and to promote it. If he has his way, his son can be released from prison after serving only one half of his 8 year sentence, rather than the minimum 85% of sentence required under the current strike system.

Chief Opposition:
Every District Attorney in the State of California (all 58 of them)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Dozens of law enforcement agencies

Additional Information:

“In the Futherance of Justice”: The Effects of Discretion on the Implementation of California’s Three Strikes Law, by Jennifer Walsh, Asst. Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminalistcs study
http://www.threestrikes.org/walsh_pg_one.html

The Prosecutors Perspective on California’s Three Strikes Law http://www.cdaa.org/WhitePapers/ThreeStrikes.pdf

A Letter from Michael Ramos, San Bernardino County District Attorney
http://www.cdaa.org/CDAAMember/SanBernardinoOpEd0924.pdf

The threestrieks.org web site:
http://www.threestrikes.org/index.html

http://WhyAmIDead.com

2004 Presidential Candidates

I know I'm not the only person who feels that the 2004 Presidential debates have been a complete waste of time, money and effort. This year's election, even more than most, is one in which the public feels like they must choose the lesser of two evils. On one hand, we have our incumbent who ignores his supposedly conservative heritage, spends like a maniac, stomps on our rights with the Patriot Act and who can't string more than three words together if not guided by a teleprompter. On the other hand we have a waffling liar who has spent the last two decades of his political career trying to raise taxes, slash the military and increase federal control over education and healthcare. Kerry has voted for giving illegal aliens "in state" college tuition, and has voted against limiting punitive damages in product liability law suits. Bush and Kerry both support amnesty for many illegal aliens, and are in favor of maintaining our high rate of legal immigration. Both Bush and Kerry are in favor of keeping the Patriot Act, though Bush wants to expand it and Kerry wants to reduce it slightly.

Come to think of it, I don't know a single person in my private life who is actually voting FOR one of these bumbling candidates. They are voting AGAINST one of them, but there is no passion in favor of either of them. Half of the people I know are voting for Bush in spite of his departure from conservatism, because at least he "isn't as bad as Kerry". The other half is voting for Kerry only because he is the guy with a slight chance of getting rid of Bush. Even the candidates have little to say that is positive about themselves. 75% of the debate time was spent saying how bad the other guy will be for our country.

Enough is enough!

We need not and should not vote for either of these bozos. There are quite a few seemingly intelligent and decent candidates out there backed by smaller parties. Pick one that reflects your views and vote for them. The selection of the next leader of the most powerful nation on Earth should not look like a sequel to the Dumb and Dumber movie.

Some people claim that voting for a third party candidate is "throwing away your vote", but frankly, the only way to throw your vote away is to cowardly support someone that you neither respect nor agree with simply because you are afraid of the alternative.

If given a choice between a punch in the face, a kick in the groin or a lottery ticket with a miniscule chance of winning, which would you choose?
Think of the third party candidate as the lottery ticket: Odds are against it winning but at least you didn't help someone give you a punch in the face or a kick in the groin.

If by some miracle a third party candidate does win, the two-party system will be devastated, and that's exactly what this country needs. Even if ten different third party candidates each get 2% of the vote, the Republicans and Democrats will panic. Both parties would then have to actually stand for something and keep their promises rather than this current mockery where they each find different ways to steal our money to support programs and policies we don't like and inflict laws on us that we never asked for.

Look at the 2000 presidential election. The voting was so close that it took days of recounting in order to figure out who won. If one or more third party candidates had gotten another 1% of the vote, it would have literally changed the outcome of the election. Imagine how much harder the Republicans would have worked to get your vote this year if 100,000 more disgruntled conservatives had voted for the Libertarian, Constitution or Reform Party candidates and denied Bush the victory! Imagine if the Democrats had learned that Al Gore would have won if it wasn't for a few thousand disillusioned Democrats in Florida voting for the Green Party, the Communist Party or some other group that has much in common with the Democrat Party.

For those of us in states that traditionally support one party or the other, your vote won't change the outcome of the election anyway, so a third part vote will be no worse than any other vote. California, for instance, always supports the Democratic candidate. As a result, California is ignored by both parties because the Democrats take us for granted and the Republicans write us off as a lost cause. If those Californians intelligent enough to be unhappy with the front runners all vote for third party candidates, chances are Kerry will still get the CA electoral votes. Nevertheless, the Republicans and Democrats would both be weakened by this reduced support and will have a harder time raising funds in that state for the next campaign. The third parties, however, would reap tremendous benefits as voting for them gives them a better chance of attending debates, getting publicity, raising campaign funds and calling attention to their hot issues.

Send a message to the entrenched power brokers and vote third party!

For my part, I will be supporting Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party.

For more information on wielding political power, influencing politicians and supporting third party candidates, visit the "Wielding Power" section of www.LestDarknessFall.com

Welcome to the Lest Darkness Fall blog!

I am a libertarian thinker and activist in favor of minimizing and curtailing the power government has over the lives of citizens. I believe the government should work for the people and operate within the carefully limited confines of the United States Constitution. As such, I have created and am continually updating a web site: www.LestDarknessFall.com, in order to educate and win people over to my way of thinking.

www.LestDarknessFall.com is where I have placed researched articles and essays with links and supporting statistics covering issues such as private gun ownership, the bill of rights, wielding political power, the war on terror, parenting, and much more. Although this web site is very appropriate for researched articles on weighty issues, it is not the most convenient medium for me to use when quickly responding to current events or offering off the cuff personal opinions and commentary. It is my intent that the dynamic nature of this blog will compliment the academic and static nature of the web site, and that the combination of these two mediums will provide a more enriching experience for those willing to learn about liberty, freedom and personal responsibility.