The Risk of Being a Burglar

The United Kingdom (UK) is usually a safe haven for criminals. Armed self-defense is generally looked down upon even in instances where criminals have broken into a person’s home. Thankfully pockets of common sense still exist there:

A judge has told two burglars that if they choose to raid a home where the householders legally own a gun they should accept the risk of being shot.

Judge Michael Pert QC made his remarks as he jailed Joshua O’Gorman and Daniel Mansell for four years at Leicester crown court after they were blasted by Andy Ferrie’s shotgun while attempting to burgle his farm cottage in Welby, near Melton Mowbray, in the early hours of 2 September.

Rejecting a plea that he take into account the shooting, which injured and allegedly “traumatised” the defendants, the judge said: “That is the chance you take.”

I like Judge Pert. He properly took the shooting into consideration when making his verdict and that consideration is that getting shot is a risk you take when you break into a person’s home.

If you’re sitting at home and some goon breaks in you can safely assume he doesn’t mean you well. Is he there to rob the place or murder you? You can’t be sure until the crime is done so you must assume the worst and take appropriate action. Often taking appropriate action can land you in legal trouble because the status of armed self-defense is dicey in many places. Usually the UK is one of these places but it’s nice to see at least one judge acknowledging the right to self-preservation. Hopefully this sets a precedence for future self-defense cases in the UK.

Bad Things can Happen Anywhere

Opponents of carry laws are always quick to list off a bunch of places they don’t think people should be allowed to carry. They will say people have no need to carry a gun into a school, church, or their place of business but as yesterday’s events in Minneapolis show us bad things can happen anywhere:

A man who apparently had just lost his job at a small business in Minneapolis’ Bryn Mawr neighborhood returned to the building Thursday afternoon and opened fire, killing the company’s founder and three others and wounding four others before taking his own life.

Reality isn’t kind, it doesn’t prevent bad things from happening to us in places where we feel most familiar and comfortable. Just because we go to the same place of work everyday doesn’t mean a raving lunatic won’t walk in one day and start shooting.

There are no gun-free zones. Just because a piece of legislation, a company police, or a sign says guns can’t be brought into an area doesn’t mean the unlawful won’t bring guns into that area. What is known is that the people who commit these crimes usually commit suicide upon the first sign of armed resistance. Generally this happens after the police arrive but can also happen if people in the area are armed. In fact the death toll can be greatly decreased by armed individuals in the immediate area as they don’t have the police’s tens of minutes response time.

It’s unfortunate but bad things can happen to good people anytime and anywhere, even in places we feel most comfortable.

Some Germans Looking to Address Their Country’s Gun Laws

It appears as though some people living in Germany are thinking it’s time to reconsider the country’s strict gun laws:

ANGERMUENDE, Germany – Not long after the Polish border crossing into Germany fully opened in 2007, the Russian mob arrived. But it took until this summer for people in this newly capitalist German region of farmland, forests and lakes to start fighting back.

Small businesses have lost millions of dollars’ worth of agricultural and construction equipment to thieves from beyond the German border. The thefts have made some Germans wary of their neighbors and triggered an unprecedented debate on gun use, as well as the installation of private fences, electric gates and surveillance systems.

The Germans living on the Polish border are learning what happens when the state disarms you and fails to protect you. Effectively they make you vulnerable to anybody who is unwilling to respect your property rights and/or life. In such cases one is left with only two options: submit to criminals or fight back.

Criminals prefer easy prey and no easier prey exists than unarmed individuals. When you arm those individuals the cost of performing crimes against them increases and if that cost increases enough the criminals are forced to either find a new line of work or face retaliatory violence.

Voter ID and Carry Permits

This election cycle Minnesota’s ballot will have a question asking whether an amendment should be made to the state constitution that would require presenting photo identification when voting (generally referred to as the voter ID amendment). Supporters of the initiative claim the measure is necessary to prevent voter fraud while opponents claim the added hurdle of having to acquire photo identification will disenfranchise the poor and minorities. What’s interesting is the general cognitive dissonance occurring on both sides of this debate.

As with any American political debate the two opposing sides can be generally identified by party lines. Self-identified republicans generally support the amendment while self-identified democrats generally oppose it. Let’s peel back the rhetoric regarding this issue for a second and look at it through another lens, carry permits. Laws requiring individuals to receive a permit to carry a firearm are very similar to laws requiring photo identification to vote. Voting and bearing arms are both Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Both rights are used to wield weaponry (granted the state is a far more dangerous weapon than a firearm but the analogy still holds). Requiring any kind of permitting process to exercise either right adds a barrier to entry that affects poor individuals disproportionally.

In Minnesota one must attend a training class in order to qualify for a permit. Once an individual has successfully passed the required training class they must file for a permit at their local Sheriff’s office. Both the class and filing for the permit cost money. The cost of the class varies but the average price point appears to hover around $100.00 while the cost for apply for a permit is set by the Sheriff’s office but can’t exceed $100.00 (which is the price if you’re living in Hennepin County). An individual wanting to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms in Minnesota is looking at shelling out $200.00 (and the permit is only good for five years, after which you need to go through the whole process again). Needless to say an extremely poor individual who is living from paycheck to paycheck is going to find it very difficult to exercise their right to bear arms.

Voter ID legislation, like laws requiring carry permits to exercise your right to bear arms, adds a barrier to entry for those wanting to vote. While the amendment being presented in Minnesota requires photo identification for the purposes of voting be given out for free an individual still has to invest their time in obtaining identification. As most government offices are only open during normal business hours getting a permit often requires taking time off of work, which is very difficult if you’re living from paycheck to paycheck. It also requires getting to a government office, which can be difficult for poor individuals who cannot afford an automobile or cab fare. Needless to say free photo identification isn’t free.

Laws requiring carry permits to exercise the right to bear arms are similar to voter ID laws in another way, both are supported by fear mongering instead of facts. Supporters of voter ID laws claim that such laws will prevent rampant voter fraud but have no proof that rampant voter fraud is happening. Supporters of carry permit laws claim such restrictions are necessary to prevent violent individual from carrying firearms but have no proof that such restrictions will prevent violent individual from carrying firearms. When the creation of boogeymen is necessary in order to garner support for legislation then you know that legislation is bad.

What’s interesting is that, in general, self-identified republicans oppose restrictions on the right to bear arms while self-identified democrats support restrictions to varying extents. Self-identified republicans will often support so-called constitutional carry laws, laws that abolish any permitting process for individuals wanting to legally carry a firearm, while self-identified democrats will often oppose them. Yet the tables turn when it comes to voter ID legislation. Suddenly self-identified republicans are the ones generally supporting restrictions to the exercise of a right while self-identified democrats are the ones generally opposing restrictions. Consistency and politics seldom go hand in hand.

I oppose voter ID laws and laws requiring carry permits in order to exercise the right to bear arms. Both restrictions exist to disenfranchise individuals from exercising their rights, both restrictions are supported by fear mongering instead of facts, and both restrictions are state grabs for power.

The Difference Between Gun Control Advocates and Gun Rights Advocates

Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership Violence, wrote an article that demonstrates the difference between advocates of gun control and advocates of gun rights. The primary difference is that advocates of gun rights are generally distrusting of the state while advocates of gun control believe the state is a magical unicorn-like creature that can and will save everybody from ill. Put another way advocates of gun rights are realists while advocates of gun control are delusional.

Horwitz’s current article is worth a read because he claims that advocates of gun rights entirely disregard the Constitution. I find this to generally not be the case as most advocates of gun rights are well versed in the Constitution and believe, if followed, it would ensure a society where tyranny was all but entire nonexistent. I’m not part of this camp, I think the Constitution is a horrible document that exists solely to centralize power in one large federal government. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation, which left almost all governing matters to the individual states. Under the Articles of Confederation the federal government wasn’t even allowed to tax and had to rely on money given to it by the individual states more or less voluntarily.

Since I’m a rare bird that promotes gun rights and opposes the Constitution I thought it would be fun to address Horwitz’s article. Where else are you going to get an anarchist’s point of view regarding both gun rights and the Constitution (seriously, if there are any other anarchist gun bloggers out there let me know because I’d like to get in touch)?

Pro-gun leaders like NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre would have us believe that “the guys with the guns make the rules” in our democracy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, our Founders ratified the Constitution to obviate the need for political violence.

Horwitz is off to bad start by claiming that the Constitution obviates the need for violence regarding political matters. This is a symptom of gun control advocates’ delusion that the state is wholly good, they can’t even see the state’s gun pointed at their head. The Constitution grants the federal government the power to both create and enforce laws. All laws, whether they’re passed by a dictator or democratically, are ultimately enforced by the threat and use of violence.

Consider the consequences of violating a posted speed limit. If an officer catches you speeding they’re likely to flip on their seizure inducing lights and chase you down. Most people pull over because they know the consequences of not doing so involve the officer pursuing them and using every increasing amounts of force. Officers may attempt to use a PIT maneuver to send the speeder’s car into an uncontrolled spin, they may deploy a spike strip to puncture the speeder’s tires, or they may escalate to the use of firearms. Since most people understand the implied threat of violence they pull over. At that point the officer will likely issue you a citation, which you will either pay or face state violence. Failing to pay a speeding ticket isn’t merely ignored by the state. The state has no problem sending officers to your residence to kidnap you and lock you in a cage and won’t hesitate to kill you if you resist the attempted kidnapping.

Horwitz’s claim that the Constitution obviates the need for violence is laughable and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the political means works.

The very first line of the document reads as follows: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

While the fist line of the document says all those warm and fuzzy things it goes downhill from there. Buried under the cuddly opening statement are clauses that grant the federal government the power to tax and establishes a Supreme Court that has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. Since the federal government has a complete monopoly on interpreting the Constitution everything written within is meaningless. If the Supreme Court determines the interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to prohibit individual from growing wheat for their personal consumption then growing wheat for personal consumption is illegal. Because of this monopoly the Constitution should be rewritten to say “This document means whatever the fuck the Supreme Court says it means.”

The Founders were telling the world that this brilliant new system of government — this social compact — would secure individual rights on a scale previously unknown in the civilized world. They protected liberty not by creating a libertarian society where every citizen was in it solely for himself, but by establishing a strong, energetic government and stressing civic responsibility.

Let me get this straight, the Founding Fathers wanted to protect individual rights so they established a strong government that had a monopoly on deciding what rights individuals have? How can you protect individual rights if somebody can decide, on a whim, what those rights are? Let’s consider the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yet Anwar al-Awalki and his 16 year-old son were assassinated by their government. According to the Constitution the United States isn’t at war since Congress never declared one so it can’t be claimed the assassination was legal due to war time circumstances. The Constitution doesn’t seem to be doing a very good job of protecting individual rights since the executive branch decided it was perfectly find to skip the whole grand jury requirement in the Fifth Amendment and execute two citizens by hellfire missile.

In the face of this history and the plain terms of the Constitution itself, it is amazing to see modern insurrectionists like Judge Roy Moore, the controversial former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, write things like, “Liberty and freedom are gifts of God, and not the government. The means by which we secure those gifts are ultimately in the hands and the ‘arms’ of the people.” It’s as if Moore is totally unaware of all the robust protections for individual rights spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Protections so robust that they’re entirely nonexistent. What Horwitz doesn’t understand is that rights can’t be given by another person, they can only be taken. I enjoy the right to free speech until another person decides to use violence to prohibit my exercise of that right. Even if the Constitution said “Individuals only have the right to say what the state approves of.” I would enjoy the right to free speech until some state goon decide to enforce that clause. While I don’t argue the existence of rights by citing deities the claim that rights are God given is accurate if one believes God created the universe. If God did create the universe he created a natural state where individuals were free to do whatever they wanted unless coerced by another. I can choose to take a leak on a tree and will suffer no consequences until another person decides he doesn’t like me pissing on that tree and attempts to stop me by initiating force.

The statement, “The means by which we secure those gifts are ultimately in the hands and the ‘arms’ of the people.” is entirely true. What if you really want to piss on the previously mentioned tree? Unless you can defend yourself from the other person you’re basically at his mercy. Arms give individuals the ability to better resist an aggressor and therefore allow individuals to protect their rights from third-party infringement. If somebody is willing to use violence to prohibit you from acting then the use of defensive force is the only option an individual has to guarantee their ability to act.

The idea of liberty may be a “gift of God,” but the Framers knew it could only be safeguarded if a robust government was in place to arbitrate private disputes and guarantee that each citizen has an equal voice in the affairs of the nation.

I’m sure the people of medieval Iceland would have loved to know that their history of successful private arbitration without an existing state was impossible. History shows that a robust government is not necessary to arbitrate private disputes.

Furthermore, what spurred the drafting of the Constitution was a fear that “licentiousness” — freedom taken to excess — was the greatest threat to individual liberty!

No, the Constitution was drafted because advocates of powerful central governments were unhappy with the almost powerless federal government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. Wikipedia has a very short summary of the historical context of the Constitutional Convention that spawned the United States Constitution. The primary issues had by the drafters of the Constitution was the federal government’s inability to tax (and thus pay for governmental programs), the inability to enforce states payment of federal taxes, and the fact that any single state could veto changes to the Articles of Confederation. In short the Founders wanted more centralized taxing authority.

In LaPierre’s world, it’s as if the U.S. government never fostered the most powerful economy in the world, or put Neil Armstrong on the moon, or won two world wars, or built a national system of highways, or prevented generations of senior citizens from living out their final years in poverty, etc., etc.

The Soviet Union also spawned a powerful economy, put people into space, won a World War, and built a national transportation system. Nazi Germany developed a powerful economy and built the national highway system that inspired the United State’s national highway system. A nation can achieve great things even without the supposed protections of the United States Constitution. In fact a nation can achieve many great things since it can simply raise the capital required to achieve those things by stealing it from the people through taxation.

I’ll also argue against Horwitz’s claim that the United States government prevented generations of senior citizens from living out their final years in poverty because I know many senior citizens currently living out their final years in poverty.

Perhaps most disturbing are the endless attempts to conflate our constitutional republic with some of the most brutal and inhumane dictatorships in human history (try Googling “gun control Hitler” sometime).

When a certain gun law in the United States is almost direct translations of a Nazi gun control law it’s impossible to avoid the comparison without ignoring reality.

Recently, when my organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, asked National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) General Counsel Larry Keane if he felt that individual Americans had a right to shoot and kill government officials in response to what they personally perceived as “tyranny,” Keane tweeted back at us plaintively, “Just like the Jews in the ghettos of Warsaw? The South Sudanese? Kurds? The American colonists?”

Keane makes an important, but unintended, point. Countries that kill their own citizens are not democracies. As political scientist R.J. Rummel noted in his 1997 book, Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence, nations with strong democratic institutions do not murder their own citizens.

Horwitz is misrepresenting what R.J. Rummel has stated. He hasn’t said democracies don’t kill their own citizens, he said the more totalitarian a state is the more of its own citizens it kills. That is to say the more decentralized a state is the less dangerous it tends to be for its citizens. As I stated above the United States government killed two of its citizens not too terribly long ago, which invalidates Horwitz’s claim.

It’s easy to see how gun control advocates come to their conclusions. They believe the state is good and that the state will protect its citizens from all ills. Reality is harsh and people often use escapism to avoid facing it. When you realize that bad people exist you have two options: face that fact and prepare accordingly or refuse to accept that fact and escape to a fantasy land where you can control everything. Advocates of gun control have chosen the latter option while advocates of gun rights have chosen the former. This is why advocates of gun control need to lie, cheap, and misrepresent facts; they are trying to escape to a fantasy land that requires reality be ignored entirely.

Failing to Find Fault with Stand Your Ground Laws

Miguel over at Gun-Free Zone pointed out the current results of the Florida study that was put together in an attempt to find fault with the state’s stand your ground law. Needless to say the study has found nothing demonstrating anything negative about the stand your ground legislation so they’re listing the study as inconclusive:

Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll has repeatedly said that the task force commissioned to look into Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law will make its decision based on facts, not emotions.

But Carroll and 18 other task force members learned Wednesday that those facts — like many stand your ground cases — can be difficult to pin down.

A University of Florida professor presented a slew of data tracking trends in crime, gun ownership and tourism since the 2005, but ultimately concluded that no definitive connections could be made yet to the stand your ground law.

“The data that we collected in response to the task force request is insufficient to provide a conclusion on this issue,” said professor Monique Haughton Worrell of UF’s law school. “It’s a complex issue, requiring complex analysis.”

That last paragraph is a long winded way of saying they want to continue collecting a pay check for performing this unneeded study. Why do I say the study is unneeded? Because stand your ground legislation is merely the legalization of self-defense, which one shouldn’t need special state permission to do. Stand your ground legislation merely states that you have a right to defend yourself against an aggressor anywhere you have a right to be. It doesn’t give you the right to murder somebody in cold blood or to trespass on another’s property and claim self-defense if you attack the owner when he tries to remove you. It’s common sense and shouldn’t even need to be legalized by legislation, legitimate self-defense should never be illegal.

More of the Same

During the Democratic National Convention (DNC) Dianne Feinstein announced that she was going to continue being bigoted towards gun owners:

Dianne Feinstein announced Wednesday that she’s re-entering the battle over gun control during her keynote speech to the California delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

[…]

She promised California delegates she’d return to Congress to reintroduce “an updated assault weapons bill.”

At the delegates’ breakfast, she said that, “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theatres.”

Bigotry is irrational so it’s not surprising to see Feinstein invalidate her own argument for introducing a new “assault” weapon ban. Specifically she stated that, “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theatres.” In many states it’s illegal to carry long arms of any sort unless they are unloaded and in a locked case. There is a federal prohibition against carrying firearms into public schools so one cannot legally bring an “assault” weapon into a classroom. Many theaters, including most of the theaters in the Twin Cities, post notification against carry weapons on the property. Each of the locations she mentioned have currently established restrictions (some are prohibitions left up to the property owner while others are legal prohibitions) against carrying “assault” weapons within. If current gun control laws have failed to stop weapons from entering gun-free zones how will passing more gun control laws change anything?

Feinstein is so obsessed with her crusade against gun owners that she doesn’t even see the fallacy in her own arguments.

The Real Threat

Advocates of gun control generally want to disarm “civilians” but allow military and police members to keep their firearms. Since gun control advocates always claim their crusade is done in the name of stopping violence, yet their justification and what they advocate directly conflict:

Two events this past week clearly illustrated a reality that has long been understood by firearm trainers, but is virtually unknown to the public – that most cops are really poor shots with a handgun, placing the public at great risk when they engage in shootouts with suspects, while many civilians who regularly carry guns are far less likely to hit innocent bystanders.

[…]

But how can this be? Aren’t police officers “highly trained” experts in the use of firearms? The short answer is NO. Contrary to the claims of politicians like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and the fantasy world of television, where law enforcement characters spend endless hours at the gun range honing their skills, in reality most police officers go to a shooting range only ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR. And when they get there, they usually fire no more than one box of ammunition – a mere 50 rounds.

True, there are exceptions – some of my cop friends practice regularly, including participating in “combat” shooting competition. As a result, they are highly skilled, and would likely be far more effective than most of their fellow officers, should they become involved in an actual shooting confrontation. But the problem is that they are exceptions.

Compare that to civilian handgun permit holders, many of whom practice monthly, if not weekly, and firing hundreds of rounds at each session. I myself shoot approximately 75 times a year (twice a week in Summer, and at least once a week in Winter). Now, I am a professional firearm instructor, and thus not the norm, but I can attest to the fact that I often run into my students at the range, so I am by no means an anomaly.

The real threat to public safety aren’t permit holders, it’s the police. Police officers have a dangerous combination of legal immunity from consequences resulting in their poor shooting and an utter lack of training with the weapons they care everyday. Little motivation exists for police officers to improve their skill as they are seldom held responsible for any “collateral damage” they cause. Meanwhile many permit holders are gun enthusiasts who practice shooting on a regular basis and realize there are severe legal consequences to shooting innocent bystanders. Who would you trust more with a firearm?

Carrying Multiple Guns

I had an interesting conversation with one of my friends regarding carrying multiple firearms. My friend is a big proponent of the “Two is one and one is none” philosophy and, as you can guess, he carries multiple firearms. Meanwhile I generally only carry my Glock 30SF. Carrying a gun or multiple guns is really an issue of risk mitigation.

The reason I carry a firearm is to give myself a fighting chance should another individual wish to initiate violence against me or mine. When I assess risk I determine that the chance of being violently attacked is greater than any detriment inflicted on my person from carrying a firearm. In all seriousness I’ve been carrying a firearm for so long that I don’t even notice it’s there. My holster prevents any sharp corners on my pistol from poking me and the most discomfort I get when carrying is sweat buildup under my holster in the summer (which I generally mitigate by switching to an outside-the-waistband holster and covering it with an untucked shirt). I also carry two additional magazines on my person because the risk of a magazine failing or being attacked by numerous assailants is higher than the discomfort of carrying the additional magazines (I wear 5.11 Covert Cargo pants that have two pistol magazine pouches in the front concealed pockets so there is no discomfort wrought from carrying additional magazines). What I generally don’t carry is an extra gun.

I do own a backup gun, a Ruger LCP, but carry it mostly in the front pocket of my coat during the winter (I wear a military surplus Swiss greatcoat in the winter and am unable to quickly access the Glock 30SF on my hip). There are also a few occasions where I’ve carried my LCP because maximum concealment was my primary concern (one case was at my grandfather’s funeral where the sight of any firearm would have caused unnecessary hysterics as many members of my extended family are hoplophobic). Needless to say my LCP gets quite a bit of use, just not as a backup gun. I haven’t found a method of carrying a backup gun that doesn’t involved discomfort. While I recognize there is a risk of my primary firearm failing so catastrophically that is becomes entirely useless it is fairly low. Glock pistols (along with most modern combat pistols) are generally known for their reliability. The chances of me being attacked are low but not low enough that I forego carrying a firearm. The chances of me being attacked and my carry gun failing are extremely low and I can’t justify the added discomfort of carrying another pistol for such a low risk.

During our conversation my friend admitted that the risk is low but asked if it was low enough to bet my life on. It is. There are other risks that are so low that I’m willing to bet my life on them. I don’t carry a rifle because the risk of being attacked by individuals clad in body armor is quite low, much too low to justify lugging around my LR-308 everywhere I go. Speaking of body armor, I don’t wear any. The risk of being shot do not outweigh the constant discomfort I would have to suffer if I wore body armor 24/7.

Life is risky and we must each assess the risk we face and mitigate it as much as we feel necessary. Some people feel the risk of being attacked and having their primary sidearm fail is high enough to warrant carrying a backup gun. Soldiers in foreign countries believe the risk of being shot is high enough to justify wearing body armor at all times, even in the desert. Most people seem to believe the risk of getting into an automobile accident are high enough to warrant wearing a seat belt. Ultimately we much each assess the risk we face and determine what methods are justifiable to mitigate that risk. There are no right or wrong answers and you and only you know the risks you face and what measures are justifiable to mitigate it. Gun control advocates make the mistake of believing they know what is justifiable for other people. They believe the chances of being attacked are so minor that nobody is justified in carrying a firearm. Are they right? No, because they do not know what risks each individual faces and therefore cannot know what is and isn’t justifiable to mitigate those risks.

It’s Good to See the Democrats Aren’t Failing to Disappoint

After the Republican National Convention (RNC) it appeared as though the Republican Party would be claiming a near monopoly on targeting specific demographics for state hostilities. Thankfully the Democratic Party appear to have come through at the last minute and returned balanced to an unbalanced equation:

The Democrats’ approach to gun control is far too timid and needs a boost of courage to be effective, some leading gun-control advocates are charging.

The draft language of the Democrats’ 2012 platform — set for a final vote this week in Charlotte, N.C. — argues that current safeguards protecting the public against gun violence are insufficient and urges “an honest and open conversation about firearms.”

The document also calls for “reasonable regulation” governing guns, including laws banning assault weapons and requiring all gun sellers — not just licensed dealers — to perform background checks on potential buyers.

While the Republican Party continues its crusade against homosexuals the Democratic Party continues its crusade against gun owners. I refuse to condemn my gay friends to a state that is hostile towards them and I refuse to condemn myself and my gun owning friends to a state that is hostile towards us. This is where I would make some quip about no longer being willing to vote for either party but I crossed that bridge a long time ago.

Isn’t it funny how politics always ends with one side gaining at the expense of another?