Guns In Iraq

I've been hearing a lot lately about the U.S. soldiers in Iraq going house to house to disarm the Iraqis. It is beginning to infuriate me.

Of course, I understand that we're at war and that Iraqis are our enemy. However, taking their guns away is another matter. The Second Amendment guarantees every man on Earth the right to own and bear arms. This applies to Americans and Iraqis alike. For this reason, I believe the U.S. army is wrong to try and disarm the Iraqis.

Sure, there are those who say that we have to take away their guns or they'll shoot our soldiers. I would remind those people of an old saying we're famous for at the Kern County Gun Club, of which I am the President: "Guns don't kill people, people with guns do." What that means is that you don't have to fear the guns, you have to fear the people with the guns.

Taking away the guns is just not right. Charlton Heston, the former president of the N.R.A. and a really old guy now, once said that they can have his gun when they pry it from his old dead fingers. I think Mr. Heston had it right. If the U.S. soldiers see an Iraqi who is old and whose fingers look dead, they have every right to take the gun from him. But, the rest of the people should be left alone.

The Kern County Gun Club has written a strongly worded letter to General Tommy Franks and to Attorney General John Ashcroft demanding a stop to the disarming of Iraqis. We support the troops but we can't support them taking away the enemy's guns on account of it violating the Second Amendment.

When you start playing around with the God-created Bill of Rights by clamping down on rights, you set the stage for depriving men of life, liberty, and happiness. The people of Iraq need to know that they have the freedom of the press, as long as it's not that Al-Jazeera, and they have freedom of religion to a certain extent, and they are free to own guns. They should expect and receive no less. As God and gun loving Americans, we owe that much to them.

• Guns Do Not Need to Be Safe (June 19, 2003)
• Assault Weapons at Wal-Mart (May 22, 2003)
• Would You Sell A Cluster Bomb To This Man? (May 1, 2003)
• Ashcroft Stands Up To California Libs (March 5, 2003)
• The Star Wars Sequel (February 26, 2003)
• Read the 2nd Amendment, Stoopid! (December 5, 2002)

by Homer Wilson
May 1, 2003

The liberal gun-haters are at it again, this time depriving me of a legitimate hunting weapon. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think criminals ought to have guns. But, law-abiding citizens ought to be able to buy guns and other weaponry without government interference.

My latest experience comes at the hand of an eBay auction, where I tried to buy a CBU-87 cluster bomb from a buyer in Yugoslavia. I had the item on my "watch" list and the day before the auction ended, I noticed that the item had been removed from eBay's site. I guess I should have used the "Buy It Now" option.

Imagine my surprise when I contacted the seller and learned that eBay had forced the item to be withdrawn from auction. We're not talking a MOAB or a nuke, but a plain, simple little cluster bomb. I found out the one in question had been dropped a few years ago on Yugoslavia by NATO and hadn't exploded, so maybe it's just as well I didn't buy it. But, you never know. Sometimes, those "duds" end up blowing up anyway. In any event, I guess there would have been a slight problem with shipping it to me, even if I'd won.

Our local NRA is meeting in a couple weeks and I'm planning to circulate a petition to have cluster bombs added to AK-47s and Uzis as weapons that ought to be generally available at fine gun shops and Wal-Marts everywhere. I would urge each of you to do the same. These are useful weapons that help us protect our home and property. Be sure to copy Charlton Heston on the letter. It looks good, and I do like to keep the chief informed on the activities of his indians.

by Homer Wilson
March 5, 2003

Attorney General John Ashcroft has thrown down the gauntlet to the liberals who run California. A warning shot across the bow.

Quit looking at the Department of Justice's Criminal Background check the records of those making gun purchases or you'll wind up in court with Mr. Ashcroft on the other side of the table. All I can say is, it's about time.

Guns are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, which says, and I quote: "All citizens shall have the right to own guns, as many as they want and whatever kind they want, without any interference from anyone." That may not be exact, but it's close enough.

Firearm dealers use the DOJ's Background check system to check whether a customer has a criminal record. If he doesn't he can buy a gun. Simple as that.

California has been abusing this system, which is what has Mr. Ashcroft up in arms. They use it to determine if mentally unstable persons have purchased firearms, and they use it to determine whether police should return a confiscated weapon to an arrested person. In other words, they use it to perform two additional background checks.

California claims it does the additional checks to protect its citizens from people who ought not own guns. But, I say, what about the rights of the gun owners guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? What about the rights of the mentally unstable? Why should an insane person be subjected to a second background check that deprives him of a weapon?

Why should someone who commits a crime AFTER buying his gun be prohibited from getting his gun back later on?

The 2nd Amendment is the most important amendment, next to the one about freedom of religion that guarantees prayer in school. God first, guns second. I am thankful to live in a country where people with good sense, like John Ashcroft, are in control and can put their foot down when states like California get out of line and start trampling on the rights of gun owners.

What this is really about is the belief that guns kill people. How many times does Charlie Heston have to say it? Guns don't kill people, people with guns do. Until that simple lesson is learned by the liberals, we'll have to rely on men of good intentions, like John Ashcroft, to protect our gun-owning liberties.

by Homer Wilson
February 26, 2003

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has proposed implementing the Star Wars missile defense system without testing. According to Rumsfeld, we need to "just get something in place." President Bush agrees. So do I.

Normally, weapons systems of this type would require testing to make sure they work. After all, we will spend billions and billions of dollars on this system. I would join Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, however, in saying that we need this system in place even if it doesn't work.

See, the mere thought that it might work will be enough to scare away countries like North Korea and Iraq from shooting missiles in our direction. The very idea that those missiles might be blasted out of the sky will act as a strong deterrant.

If we continue testing the system and continue to demonstrate to the world that the system doesn't work, the whole "it might work so you'd better not aim missiles our way" strategy falls by the wayside. After all, this system hasn't proven to be very reliable in the past. It's hard to hit a moving target, especially one like a missile that's going very fast.

There will likely be considerable debate throughout Congress over the wisdom of spending billions of dollars the country doesn't have to build something that might not work to stop missiles that might not be fired at us anyway. Congress seems to always want to have its hand in the legislative process. This time, we need to just skip all the talk and get the thing installed in the ground. The important thing is not whether it works, but whether we can "just get something in place." There will be plenty of time later to worry about whether it works.

by Homer Wilson
December 5, 2002

The Ninth Circuit has once again gone and stepped in it. I’m talking about this new decision they came down with saying the 2nd Amendment don’t apply to individuals but only applies to state militias. As a result of this bone-headed decision, the good people of California will not be able to buy semiautomatic rifles, pistols, or shotguns, or weapons that act as a grenade or a fire launcher. I know you are as appalled as I am by this blatant violation of individual rights reserved to the citizenry by the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The plain reading of the 2nd Amendment should have decided this case. It says, and I quote: "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What could be more clear? The “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Hear that 9th Circuit! Shall “not be infringed.” There, I said it twice.

Now, a lot’s been made about what I call the “militia language” in the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I think the founding fathers meant for us to disregard that part of the amendment, especially since there aren’t any state militias around today. I have no doubt that if the founding fathers were around today, you’d have to pry their grenade launchers from their cold dead hands.

My only hope is that the Supremes will reverse this horrible miscarriage of justice. John Ashcroft is a man dedicated to the gun movement, so I know he’ll do everything he can to make sure that happens, and with five of the judges on the Court being of the “right thinking” mind, if you catch my drift, we have a good shot – no pun intended there – of shoving this decision right back up the 9th Circuit’s back end.