2013-06-20T07:13:02-04:00 Brad Linzy http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=brad-linzy Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Brad Linzy Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2312565 2012-12-16T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-15T05:12:01-05:00

Brad Linzy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-linzy/
The story of why firearms are considered an unalienable right in my country and why this right is still so treasured by so many Americans has its roots in history. In the Colonial era, when the 13 American colonies were under British rule, the King treated the colonists like second class subjects of the British Empire. They were not allowed representation in Parliament, were routinely were forced to quarter English soldiers in their homes, and were taxed heavily to pay for the King's other military adventures and extravagances. The final straw was broken for colonists on 19 April 1775 when British troops were sent to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the firearms of farmers. The only thing standing between the colonists and further subjectivity was their firearms. King George knew this and so did the colonists.

When the Revolution was finally won and the Constitution crafted, the framers decided that a Bill of Rights containing a non-exhaustive list of the most important rights of individuals, including the right to keep and bear arms, was in order. The reasons for this were rooted in the contrast between the new American ideal of individualism and the subjectivity they had hitherto experienced under British rule. It was also important because the States were expected to maintain their own "well regulated" militias in the event of another invasion. These militias were composed of the same common folk who had won the Revolution, basically every man capable of handling a weapon was expected to respond if called upon.

Today, Switzerland has a similar arrangement. In the absence of a standing army, every Swiss household is required to carry a firearm and be trained in its use. Consequently, Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates, not only in Europe, but in the world.

For those who think the above history lesson and vigilance against tyranny anachronistic or irrelevant in modern times, I suggest studying the examples of the past century where firearms were successfully taken from citizens - countries such as Germany, the Soviet Union, Turkey, China, Uganda, Guatemala and Cambodia to name but a few. Despotic leaders in these countries killed untold millions of their own citizens after depriving them of their rights to bear arms. In these extreme cases, such deprivation clearly did not guarantee security.

In less extreme cases like in Australia, crime rates rose drastically after lawful citizens were deprived of their firearms. Likewise, in cities in the US where guns have been banned and in States where gun control is strictest, crime and murder rates remain well above the national average.

The fallacy in many gun control arguments lies in the assumption that laws magically create the conditions they intend to create. It is far more common that more laws and regulations against something only create an unintended black market for the object of the ban or regulation. Just as criminalization of marijuana or heroin has not stopped their use or proliferation, criminalization of gun ownership will not stop gun use or the proliferation or firearms. The only people it will routinely disarm are the law abiding. This underscores the other main fallacy of anti-gun arguments, which is that criminals, particularly of the type that premeditate mass killings, have any interest in laws.

In my State of Indiana and many other States, law-abiding citizens are allowed to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. The application assures that you are not mentally handicapped, unstable, or have a criminal record. I carry such a weapon, not out of fear, but because as a father and husband, I feel a personal responsibility to provide as much security as I can for my family. If we ever had the grave misfortune of finding ourselves in a public place where a shooter decides to attack innocent people, I will have the means to return fire and protect my family and the other innocent people around me. Police cannot be everywhere and they have a poor record of stopping mass shootings by themselves.

It has been a common occurrence in many of the less publicized shooting sprees that common citizens have stopped the killer by returning fire with legal handguns or have managed to disarm the assailant with the mere threat of return fire. In one recent incident, which was not widely publicized, a licensed gun owner thwarted what could have been a much worse incident after training his firearm on a shooter in a shopping mall in Portland, Oregon. The shooter had already killed two people, but after realising he wasn't the only armed person present, turned the gun on himself.

The sensational stories of killings involving high numbers of people have invariably occurred in locations, such as schools, where firearms are strictly prohibited. Efforts are currently underway in some States to require a certain number of school faculty be armed and trained in crisis management, providing at least some security against mass shootings. I applaud these efforts.

In conclusion, while I understand the emotional trauma these mass shootings have on all of us, I have to caution against reacting emotionally with respect to gun control legislation. I would also urge readers outside the US to please consider alternate perspectives, data, and anecdotal evidence in support of the right to bear arms before arriving at your ultimate conclusions on the subject. In an ideal world there would be no need for weapons. There would be no borders. We would love and respect one another as human beings. Unfortunately, in such an imperfect world, imperfect solutions are sometimes necessary to avoid worse results. The historical track record of countries successfully disarming their populations while maintaining civic order and more importantly, freedom from despotism, is not good.

As an American, I am far more concerned about my own government and its propensity for using drone attacks against children in foreign countries than I am of my legally armed friends and neighbors.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1843390 2012-08-30T19:00:00-04:00 2012-10-30T05:12:01-04:00

Brad Linzy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-linzy/
I am a Precinct Committeeman in my local Republican Party (RP), which is a low-level party office. For the last six years I have been a Ron Paul supporter. For those politically homeless Americans who value civil liberties, scepticism of war, and social liberalism of the so-called 'left', yet want the smaller government, reduced spending, and sound money often preached about from the 'right', Ron Paul and his libertarian, classical liberal philosophy has offered a welcoming home.

Unlike in the UK, where you have viable alternatives to the two prevailing parties (I am particularly enamoured with the Monster Raving Loony Party), the Republicans and Democrats in America have created high petition thresholds for ballot access that make it next to impossible for third parties to compete. Until the 1970s, the RP was largely the party of "Peace and Prosperity". It championed individual liberties and freedom from state control. The Evangelical Christian neo-conservative movements came later.

I watched every Republican debate in 2008 and cheered for an unassuming man with strange beliefs about ending the Federal Reserve and bringing our troops home from not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but the roughly 900 other American bases around the world. I cheered while he openly challenged and contradicted eight years of Bush-era missteps, warned of coming economic calamity (which indeed came) and made his rivals on the Republican stage look like stooges by comparison.

I was so inspired by what this man was saying, I decided to get involved in politics. I ran for a delegate spot at my state's Republican Convention so I would have a chance to voice my concerns over the direction of the Party.

The way conventions work has been a source of confusion even for Americans. In short, conventions are a way for a large organisation to conduct business and give all members a say. Each state holds a convention, which is made up of delegates from each county and precinct. The delegates are elected by their Republican neighbours in their precinct. This is a fair process because it supposedly champions activism and ensures the higher ups play by the rules. Ron Paul supporters have used Conventions and rules to their advantage. Through diligent organization we've been able to offset his lack of media exposure by flooding the Conventions in each State.

The Indiana Republican Convention in 2008 was the first time I witnessed how party officials work to stamp out grassroots efforts. On the eve of the convention, against its own rules, a backroom committee made it so delegates could not nominate the people we wanted to become national delegates from the floor. All we could do was vote on their pre-chosen slate of delegates, people hand-picked by the party establishment to carry out their bidding without question. This was done specifically to thwart the Ron Paul grassroots.

Fast forward to 2012... The same shenanigans have occurred this election cycle at state conventions around the country. Ron Paul supporters who have followed all the rules to become duly elected delegates to represent the other Republicans in the conventions have seen their delegate status challenged and many have been arbitrarily removed by high party officials in the name of presenting a "united front" for the cameras. The Republican National Committee has violated its own rules on numerous occasions in this effort to quell dissent.

In a blatant attempt to prevent Paul supporters from entering his name into nomination in Tampa, a motion was made to change the threshold a candidate needs to be officially nominated from five states (a number in which Paul had a plurality) to eight states. They also arbitrarily removed 10 duly elected delegates from the state of Maine, all Paul supporters, and installed 10 new delegates of Romney's choosing ensuring that state could not make a motion to nominate him. There are videos circulating the net right now that show that motion and vote along with several other instances where the chairman refused to hear calls for "division" of the house, which is essentially a call for a paper ballot or roll call vote.

There are even reports from Ron Paul delegates at the convention they are being forced to first sign an agreement concocted by the Romney team saying they will not oppose anything to collect their credentials to enter the convention. Other reports charge that states in which Paul had a majority of delegates found their modes of transport to the convention were running late or were redirected.

I am convinced the efforts put forward by party insiders to quiet grassroots activism will ultimately be its downfall. Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul, it cannot be denied he has inspired a generation of young Americans to become active in politics, and in the RP. His campaigns have been beset on all sides by media obfuscation and party roadblocks, yet he has commanded the most fervent and loyal following of any American political candidate for decades outside Barack Obama. While Paul routinely spoke to overflow capacity crowds of four, six, and eight thousand supporters, Romney had embarrassing turnouts where he had to reposition cameras in empty stadiums to create the illusion he had support.

In my home state of Indiana, Ron Paul spent no money or time campaigning, yet still mustered about 16% or 100,000 votes in the primary. This result was about average for the country. The problem for Romney is that 16% of hardcore Republican voters could easily cost him the election. Ron Paul could exacerbate his problems with four simple words: "I endorse Gary Johnson," who is the Libertarian Party (LP) candidate for President.

The LP is the third largest political party in America after the Democrats and Republicans. They have traditionally found themselves on the margins of the American political conversation, but in this age of anger over ballooning debt and government bailouts, the LP has never been more popular. Many of its supporters are disgusted former Republicans. With the margins of victory in most states for Presidential candidates under 3%, a lot rides on how marginal groups like independent voters and libertarians swing. The antics at the RNC may have just sealed Romney's fate. By spitting in the faces of the Ron Paul delegation, the Romney people have burned the very bridges they should have been reinforcing, and they have proven to many of us we were right in not supporting him in the first place.]]>