... said King George, as his soldiers marched towards Concord, MA, to confiscate guns, ammo and powder.

The murders in CT on December 14 are angering and horrifying. The arguments offered to claim that a citizen's natural right to self-protection ought to be attenuated by a select group of citizens called politicians and "statesmen" are weak.

Question: Why is violent crime per capita so low in Switzerland, when every adult is required to own and know how to use a firearm?

Question: Why does violent crime skyrocket in areas that institute strict gun bans and restrictions (eg, Australia, eg, England), while violent crime plummets in areas where more gun ownership is legal? (See John Lott's excellent temporal and geographical study of gun ownership and crime, the book called "More Guns, Less Crime")

Question: To those who believe they need a state-run, taxpayer-funded army to defend them against bad guys with violent intent... Do you support making sure the soldiers are armed when they do their work? After all, they will potentially face people intent on doing them bodily harm. Consider that answer with this new facet to the thought experiment... What if a soldier killed some of his fellow soldiers while they were unarmed? Would you then say that all the surviving soldiers should be prevented from carrying firearms? How does that square with your awareness, and earlier belief that they need firearms in order to defend themselves against the baddies you send them to fight?

There is no difference between the soldier in harms way and the civilian on a street or teaching class in a school. In fact, a civilian's right to self-defense is pure, while the soldier only gets his weapon through government seizure of funds, so the right to keep and bear arms is more validly held by the non-government employee than the soldier.

If you would like, spread these points around.

We will discuss this on radio Sunday night...

Be Seeing You!