Constitutional illumination (illustrated)

[To my fellow Ohioans committed to protecting their constitutional rights from government abuse: I recommend paying a visit to The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.]

Constitutional illumination

Rather than burdening readers with a lengthy introduction, I'll get right to the meat of this post. Here's the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You and I know that those 27 words guarantee an individual right. Some still insist, however, on the primacy of the first clause -- that is, the necessity of "a well regulated militia" to be armed somehow trumps "the right of the people."

So here we are, 223 years after the Bill of Rights was introduced, applying today's language, culture and politics to our understanding of the Framers' intent. Wouldn't it be helpful to have something resembling a contemporaneous take on this fundamental right?

To that end I present Article VIII, Section 20 of the first constitution of the newly admitted State of Ohio:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State; and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power."

Adopted in 1802 -- the year before Ohio achieved statehood and just 11 years after the U.S. Bill of Rights was ratified -- that leaves no doubt about the purpose of granting the People an individual right to bear arms: "for the defense of themselves and the State."

Come-lately critics and anti-gun zealots, please take note: There's no mention of "hunting" or "subsistence" in that section -- that's because they were (and are) irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms.

The 1851 revision of the Ohio Constitution moved the state's Bill of Rights up from Article VIII to Article I -- talk about primacy -- and the section related to arms underwent a slight change at the same time:

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

That language remains in force today, underscoring that every citizen of The Great State of Ohio rightfully may bear arms "for their defense and security." It also reminds us why military forces must be "well regulated" -- because "standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty."

I could leave it there, certainly, but Ohio's constitution has much more light to shine.

Returning to our nation's founding documents, here's the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The first Constitution of the State of Ohio (1803) incorporated similar principles, addressing "natural, inherent and unalienable rights" in Article VIII, Section 1:

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights; amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; and every free republican government, being founded on their sole authority, and organized for the great purpose of protecting their rights and liberties, and securing their independence; to effect these ends, they have at all times a complete power to alter, reform or abolish their government, whenever they may deem it necessary."

In the 1851 revision, which saw Ohio citizens' enumerated rights given proper prominence, the "inalienable rights" passage became more concise. This is Article I, Section 1:

"All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety."

Notice that both versions of this section -- the second of which is still in force, by the way, 161 years after its adoption -- codify two fundamental rights before all others: "enjoying and defending life and liberty" and "acquiring, possessing, and protecting property."

Legal scholars continue to argue over whether the Declaration of Independence represents law or merely principle, but the Constitution of the State of Ohio carries the force of law. Fortunately, the early Ohioans who crafted their state's governing document -- during the same formative era in which the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ratified -- saw fit to incorporate the inalienable human right to defend life, liberty and property.

That's because they understood our nation's founding principles. Their understanding is my understanding -- and a legacy of Liberty.

Couldn't've said it better

"On this morning's edition of Fareed Zakaria GPS, the host reported that the U.S. accounts for 5% of the world's population and 50% of the world's privately owned firearms -- now that makes me proud to be an American. For those who are ashamed of Liberty but don't have the wherewithal to relocate to another country, I offer this graphic. (Instructions included at no extra charge.)" (via Facebook)

Another voice on Aurora

[Massad Ayoob, noted firearms instructor and prolific author, posted this yesterday on his Backwoods Home Magazine blog, "Massad Ayoob on Guns." The hyperlinks are mine.]

And it happens again...

Shortly after the clock ticks into the early morning hours of July 20 during a midnight movie premier at a theater in Aurora, Colorado, a mass murderer opens fire. A dozen or more dead, dozens more wounded, and practically by the time responding officers arrive the anti-gunners are already at their keyboards choreographing their traditional dance in the blood of innocent victims. One, CNN's resident Pommie priss -- who has already long since proven himself totally clueless as to the real-world dynamics of violence -- twitters that guns should be 100,000 times harder to access.

Maybe jobs as public-opinion-forming talking heads should be 100,000 times harder to get, as well. By the way, the "Pommie" reference is nothing against the British in general. The pragmatic Brits I know are aware that they have living countrymen who remember when England begged American gun owners to ship them hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns for their civilians to use as last ditch weapons against the expected Nazi land invasion. It was the Brits themselves who coined POME (Prisoner Of Mother England) to define their brothers and sisters who evinced the mentality we see in the commentator in question.

Overlooked by most is a point discovered by famed Constitutional lawyer Don Kates: the theater in question forbade firearms inside. They themselves made it impossible for even one good person in the theater to draw a lawfully-carried handgun and put a bullet through the monster's brain, to stop the horror and shortstop the tragedy.

Once again, we see that "gun free zones" are hunting preserves for psychopaths who prey on humans.

[Amen, Mas -- amen.]

On Aurora

[This was posted by a Facebook friend last night. It echoes "Here's your sign," which appeared on KintlaLake Blog almost a year ago.]

I'm sorry to be posting this so soon after the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado -- please know that my heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones -- but I'm angry.

I'm angry because, according to news reports, the movie theater where 12 people were murdered and another 59 wounded had a "No Guns Allowed" policy. It may well have posted signs like this one.

This sign kills.

Make no mistake -- even if one or more moviegoers had been lawfully carrying firearms in that theater this morning, there's no guarantee that they could've stopped the shooter or reduced the number of casualties. But we do know two things for sure.

First of all, permitting lawful carry just might've given those theater patrons a fighting chance. More important, signs like this -- and the policies they represent -- advertise to the world that the facility on which they're posted is full of unarmed people, potential victims, fish in a barrel.

It makes no sense.

Today's massacre was an act of evil, carried out by a madman. Everyone knows that madmen are shadows and evil is a fact of life, and yet some among us still suggest that we can prevent such violence by restricting or outright banning some or all firearms -- leaving innocents outgunned at best, disarmed at worst.

That's the equivalent of posting this sign on our houses and on our cars, tattooing it on our foreheads. And it makes no sense.

Madmen and criminal predators always -- and I mean always -- will find a way to get 'hold of the tools of their trade, and incidents like the one in Colorado this morning demonstrate that they sure as hell don’t obey laws and policies, much less signs. Disarming law-abiding citizens by statute, then, can have only one result.

Innocent people will die. When will we learn that?

I see signs like this on businesses every day. Uncomfortable as I am to be entering an "unarmed victims zone," sometimes I patronize the establishment anyway, rationalizing my choice in one way or another.

Not any more. It makes no sense.

More Savage hype

Savage Arms Company produced more than 200,000 copies of the diminutive Savage Automatic Pistol -- a.k.a. Model 1907 -- between 1908 and 1920. As I said in yesterday's post, the gun is remembered more for over-the-top advertising than for defensive prowess.

Consider this 1914 pitch, pulled from The Saturday Evening Post.

Again, let's take a closer look at the hyperbolic, chauvinistic copy:

Is Your Wife Helpless or Dangerous --
in these times when more idlers
make more burglars and brutes?

These times make more idlers. More idlers mean more Burglars and Brutes. Burglars and Brutes break your house; shock your wife into permanent hysteria and mark your children with a horrible fear for life.

A ten shot, easy-to-aim Savage Automatic converts your helpless wife into a dangerous defender of her children -- more dangerous to face than a mother grizzly bear.

Fathers, it is a serious duty in these times to arm your home by day and by night with a Savage Automatic -- the one arm which every Brute and Burglar fears. They fear its 10 lightning shots, 2 to 4 more than others; they fear the novice's power to aim it as easy as pointing your finger. Therefore take pains that you get the Savage -- the one the thugs fear.

As harmless as a cat around the house, because it is the only automatic that tells by glance or touch whether loaded or empty.

Take home a Savage today. Or at least send for free booklet, "If You Hear a Burglar," written by a famous detective.

Allow me to state the obvious -- a quick flip through any modern-day gun magazine reveals that manufacturers' approach to women has changed dramatically over the last 98 years. Ads now speak directly to women, acknowledging their role as gun owners and empowered (not "helpless") defenders of life and Castle. That's a good thing.

Knowing Mrs. KintlaLake as I do, it's also a sure thing.

You want me to do what?

Back in the early 1900s, venerable Savage Arms produced a small-frame semi-automatic pistol chambered in .32. The marketing angle was an appeal to women in need of protection but afraid of firearms.

Most of the ads for this gun were either hyperbolic or chauvinist -- and usually both -- but this one takes the prize for lousy advice.

Here's a taste of the copy:

Shoot the First Shots Out of the Window!

That is the very best thing to do when you find a burglar in the house, says Wm. P. Sheridan, famous detective, in the Woman's World Magazine. Arouse the whole neighborhood with shots! These first two or three shots will cause neighbors to jump to the 'phone and call the police.

Save the rest of your shots in case the burglar attacks you.

Yes, you read that right -- exactly 100 years ago, encouraging an inexperienced shooter facing an intruder to fire a few rounds out the window was considered a good idea. I know we're talking about deadly force and home defense here, but honestly, I can't help laughing.

Notice that the ad included an offer of even more such wisdom. By mail, for six cents, a reader could get a copy of The Tenderfoot's Turn (written, incidentally, by one Bat Masterson). Can you imagine?

Reprise: Iver Johnson & the Second Amendment

Among the most popular posts here on KintlaLake Blog is "Castle Doctrine, with a Norwegian accent." It features a 1917 ad for Iver Johnson's Arms & Cycle Works, noting its unapologetic expression of a citizen's right to defend home and family.

Here's another, clipped from a 1922 issue of Hearst's International:

The ad's bold headline -- "Self-preservation is the first law" -- sets the table for the copy that follows:

"Our forefathers who framed the Constitution of the United States recognized the right of citizens to protect their persons and property.

"And so the second amendment was inserted, which says, '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"

If Iver Johnson or his sons were around today, I'd like to think that they'd be advocating for our Second Amendment rights -- with or without a commercial interest, political correctness be damned.

'The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense'

Today I'm going to return briefly to the words of Frédéric Bastiat -- specifically, to the opening paragraphs of his 1850 essay, The Law:

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production -- in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Feel free to swap "nature" for "God" and "Creator," should you find Bastiat's deism bothersome -- it doesn't alter the meaning one bit.

Bastiat's fundamental premise (and indeed, the American ideal he so admired) is that individuals are superior to the governments they establish. We create law to collect and to protect, to organize and to represent -- not to replace and not to abdicate.

Life, liberty and property aren't granted to us by the governments we form and the laws we enact. The individual precedes and supersedes the collective construct.

Anything short of that ideal is "legal plunder, organized injustice."

Let's hear that again

"...I also want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of, that you said earlier. You don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground. And you referenced your homelands of England, where if someone invades your home, an English homeowner, by law, has to retreat.

"...I offer to you that that's anti-human, that that disrespects the gift of life, and it actually encourages recidivist criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground; we're going to retreat.

"...You're in America now. And in America, we have a Second Amendment right. And we value life more than sheep do. And we don't back down. So the stand-your-ground law is common sense. It's logical. And it's the right thing to do."

(Ted Nugent to CNN's Piers Morgan on Wednesday, April 4th, 2012)

Regarding Sanford

When I posted "My take on Sanford" last month, I spoke too soon. In fact, my speculation about what transpired on the night of February 26th may well have been dead wrong.

I should've known better.

New information about the incident comes to light every day -- some of it's factual, some of it's legal posturing and some of it's reflexive rhetoric from the usual suspects.

The matter is in the hands of investigators. Soon it'll be presented to a grand jury and, potentially, to a trial jury. That's where it will be (and should be) decided.

I did get one thing right -- I don't believe I've ever seen such an intense siege on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and on our human right to self-defense. Coverage of the shooting has given little time or credence to that side of the story.

All-star status (and not in a good way) goes to CNN's Piers Morgan. Not only has he followed the easy recipe, he's repeatedly spiked the punch with his British slant:

"My view from the start has been, it seems incomprehensible to me under any form of stand-your-ground law -- or any absurd law as I view it -- that somebody could shoot somebody who turned out to be unarmed and not even being arrested on the night. In Britain where I come from, that would cause a sensation the likes of which our justice system has never seen before."

"As far as British law is concerned, if this had happened in Britain, there would be no stand-your-ground defense and he would have been arrested. I'm more comfortable with the way we do things."

Last night, at least, he solicited the perspective of one Ted Nugent. Here's the complete transcript of their exchange:

MORGAN: The rally to bring justice to Trayvon Martin. The tragedy brings out a lot of emotions and everyone has an opinion on the shooting, including my next guest, Ted Nugent. Everyone knows he never holds back. And I thank him for joining me tonight. Ted, welcome back.

Last time, we were having a fairly jocular debate about all this. But this is a bit too serious for that. You've heard the attorneys on both sides there. What do you make of this case in its entirety?

NUGENT: Well, first of all, thanks for going after this very tragic situation, Piers. And thank you for having me on. But let me clarify one thing, very, very important, that you alluded to earlier in your program, that you believe that the vast majority of Americans want Zimmerman arrested.

Let me tell you what the vast majority of Americans want. We're saying prayers for the Martin family and all those other black youths that are slaughtered every week. Those are the people that we constantly cry out for.

So be very careful what you assume. Those of us that love life and respect life, we don't see any color. But we wonder where the outcry is when every week these youths are slaughtered across the streets of America. So that's the most important statement I want to make right here.

MORGAN: But, I mean, look, there are always, with all these cases, innumerable other cases that can be thrown in as why don't you care as much about that? The reality of this case is that, I believe, it's popped in America as a big cause because of the precise nature of what happened after Trayvon Martin was killed.

That is this particularly extreme version of stand-your-ground. You have to use that phrase, because it is in Florida. It's particularly wide-ranging. And it has allowed a situation where somebody can shoot an unarmed teenager and actually be allowed to go home that night without even being arrested.

That's why I understand people feeling exercised about why he wasn't arrested on the night. Shouldn't he have been? Even for someone like you, that believes in right to bear arms and guns and everything else, shouldn't he have been arrested?

NUGENT: You saw the tape. I saw the tape where he was handcuffed, Piers. That's arrested. He was arrested. He was questioned. The stand-your-ground law does have specific ramifications.

But I also want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of, that you said earlier. You don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground. And you referenced your homelands of England, where if someone invades your home, an English homeowner, by law, has to retreat.

Piers, I offer to you that that's anti-human, that that disrespects the gift of life, and it actually encourages recidivist criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground; we're going to retreat.

Piers, you're in America now. And in America, we have a Second Amendment right. And we value life more than sheep do. And we don't back down. So the stand-your-ground law is common sense. It's logical. And it's the right thing to do.

MORGAN: Right. I mean, American has 270 million guns, by common estimation. Britain, I think, has about two million.

NUGENT: I think more than that.

MORGAN: Well, maybe more than that. OK. The last record said 9,484 homicides involving guns in the last year that was recorded. Britain had 68. I suppose my point is this, is that I don't defend all the laws in Britain. Many of them are ridiculous. I don't defend all the laws in America or attack all the laws. Some, to me, seem ridiculous. Others seem perfectly fair and balanced.

It's a great country with a great legal system in many ways. I don't denigrate America with this. But on the stand-your-ground law, in particular, it seems to me unbelievable that a young, unarmed teenager in America today can actually be shot dead for possession of a bag of Skittles, on his way home to his father's girlfriend's house.

My point was, when they were mocking British law, by the way -- they started this. I said back in Britain, that wouldn't have happened. You couldn't do that without being arrested and almost certainly charged. Now I think many Americans -- let's not say the majority. I don't know the statistics. But many Americans feel uncomfortable that this could happen in modern America and that George Zimmerman would simply be allowed to go home that night when Trayvon Martin goes to a coffin.

NUGENT: Piers, you have expressed that you don't want to try this on television. I also do not want to try this on television. I think we both agree that there's a tragedy that it is being tried and that Zimmerman has been convicted across the media in many instances.

So let's not do that here. So let me propose to you a scenario that I think you can grasp and support. You must be aware, and if not I'll inform you now, how many professional law enforcement heroes are killed every year with their own weapon. I'm not juxtaposing this with the Trayvon and the Zimmerman situation.

But it does happen, where an assailant will start beating a person so badly that those of us that are armed, we have a responsibility to keep that new assault from taking our weapon, because if the assault escalates to that degree -- certainly the fist can go into a deadly situation if they get a hold of the gun bearer's gun.

So we have to be cognizant of that. If it wasn't for backup guns in law enforcement and in civilians hands, oftentimes, that the perpetrator and the person getting beat up is killed with his own gun. So let's not dismiss that reality that is documented over and over again across this country.

MORGAN: But do you believe that a neighborhood watch official acting in that capacity should be armed and using that firearm?

NUGENT: Yes.

MORGAN: OK. Well, Ted, we'll agree to disagree over that. I hope we can do that again in an extended way soon, because your opinions are always very interesting to hear. Thank you for joining me.

NUGENT: Thank you, Piers. My family sends their best and our prayers are with the Martin family.

There's some great stuff in there -- thanks, Ted.

About Morgan's final question -- judging by the pause that followed Nugent's unequivocal answer (plus the look on Morgan's face), it was clear that the host wasn't quite prepared for such an affirmation of Liberty. Go figure, eh?

Welcome to America.

Rallying points for the rest of us

Y'know, it'd be just fine with me if this image went viral:

Feel free to grab it and pass it along -- Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, whatever. If you want, hell, turn it into a bumper sticker.

And now, with apologies (or not) to songwriters Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne, these lyrics seem appropriate:

Well, I won't back down
No, I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down

Gonna stand my ground
Won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground
And I won't back down

Hey, baby, there ain't no easy way out
Hey, I will stand my ground
And I won't back down

Well, I know what's right
I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I'll stand my ground
And I won't back down

I won't minimize the tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death, nor should you infer that I'm leaping to defend shooter George Zimmerman. But facing elected officials' cowardice and largely one-sided coverage of Sanford, it's time for those of us who responsibly exercise our right to self-defense to make our voices heard.

My take on Sanford

On February 26th in Sanford, Florida, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman. The admitted shooter hasn't been charged, ostensibly because officials haven't determined if his actions fall under Florida's "stand-your-ground" law.

I have access only to news reports and not evidence, so judging guilt or innocence wouldn't be fair. That said, I'm going to be unfair.

Based on what I've read and heard, it looks to me like Zimmerman exercised criminally bad judgment and acted out of simmering hatred -- in short, he finally caught up with a black kid in a hoodie and sentenced him to death, presuming that he could avoid being charged by arguing self-defense.

Believing that and proving it are two different things, of course. At this point there's no reason to cast aspersions on rightly deliberate investigators for not yet arresting Zimmerman.

Despite that, we've seen angry protests in Sanford and beyond. Much of the news media has whipped the story into a sensational froth.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott has appointed a special prosecutor to look into the case. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has sent federal investigators to Sanford to "help" state and local officials. And, ominously, Gov. Scott has formed a task force to review the state's stand-your-ground law.

Pres. Barack Obama, responding to a reporter yesterday, said,

"I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident."

Let's be clear here: Zimmerman pursued Martin and, apparently, either confronted the unarmed teenager or provoked a confrontation, so the stand-your-ground law doesn't come into play. Still, one senseless death resulting from one stupid, irresponsible act will be exploited by those who seek to prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their families.

Zimmerman didn't do us any favors, certainly, and now Liberty-loving Americans must prepare for a fresh assault on our constitutional and human rights. Castle Doctrine in particular will come under siege nationwide -- we can count on that.


About Castle Doctrine
Preparing to employ armed defense to protect oneself and one's family is a personal choice and, thanks to our elected officials, not at all a simple one.

The crux here is called Castle Doctrine, and whether or not it applies varies from state to state. It designates a person's place of residence (and in some states a person's vehicle or workplace) as a "castle" in which that person may expect to enjoy protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that "castle," and other innocent persons legally within, from violent attack or intrusion which threatens violent attack.

Fundamentally, Castle Doctrine enables a person's right to self-defense, trumping the "duty to retreat" principle and the mandate that a person use only proportionate force against an attacker. And legally speaking, it permits the criminal defense of "justifiable homicide" when the use of deadly force actually causes death.

Castle Doctrine is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and again, it's not universal. It's also important to note that the law almost never permits armed defense of property -- only life. Each of us is obliged to know our state and local laws and make our own choices. And if we choose to make armed defense part of protecting self and family, professional training is a must.

'The Greatest Gun Salesman In America'

[Click on the info-graphic to view it full-size at ammo.net.]

Well done, Sheriff

(Admittedly "aggravated" Sheriff Chuck Wright of Spartanburg County, South Carolina, making an articulate case Monday for being an armed citizen.)

Lovable 'Madman'

Ted Nugent's music, admittedly an acquired taste, assaults the senses and seems to defy sense -- mercilessly blunt and yet expressed with undeniable precision. The same can be said of his views on politics, society and life.

Here in the KintlaLake household, we're quite fond of the ageless "Motor City Madman." We've traveled to see his live performances, and when we heard that Piers Morgan's interview with Nugent would air on CNN last night, well, we made a date to watch it.

Now we don't embrace all things Ted (he swings uncomfortably close to Caribou Barbie, for example), and we cringe when he squibs an easy shot (which happened more than once during his interview with Morgan). Still, we appreciate his unapologetic patriotism and love of liberty -- take this clip from last night's show:



Ok, so he's a passionate defender of an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. But for those who think he's a one-issue, suck-on-my-machine-gun guy, check out this segment from AC360° in January:



Notice, especially in that brief debate with Paul Begala, that "Terrible Ted" isn't so terrible. He articulates his views with intelligence and good humor -- always the entertainer, sure, but one who's not allergic to facts or common cordiality.

"I'm 63. I've been clean and sober my whole life. I was raised in a hard-core disciplined environment. To be the best that I can be. And not guess at things but to study evidence. Study conditions. Be aware of my cause and effect.

"And make a decision not based on what felt good or what was comfortable for me but rather what lessons of life taught me. So when I put forth what people call an opinion...I don't project opinions as much as I do share observations of life's realities and the evidence that brings either a quality of life when adhered [to] and learned from, or [destroys] life when ignored and not learned."

In that way he distinguishes himself from the demagogues dominating talk radio and populating our politics. He knows the difference between populism and principle, and he holds fast to the latter -- and that's why, around here, we like Ted Nugent.

Castle Doctrine, with a Norwegian accent

(Like most KintlaLake Blog readers, I'll wager, over the past two days I've been absorbing the gut-wrenching news coming out of Japan. I'll offer my observations in a future post -- tragic as it is, we can learn much from it.)

Norwegian immigrant Iver Johnson's company made bicycles, motorcycles and, for exactly 100 years of its operation, firearms. Founded in 1871, the enterprise folded in 1993.

I recall that my maternal grandfather owned (and at one time carried) an Iver Johnson revolver -- a .38, I think. The Massachusetts company's products also hold a place of infamy in American history -- in 1901, President William McKinley was felled by a round fired from an Iver Johnson revolver. So was presidential candidate Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

A couple of weeks ago I ran across an old ad for Iver Johnson's Arms & Cycle Works. It stuck with me not because of the "Safety Automatic" Revolver it promoted (I'm not really a wheelgun guy), but for the way it threw the pitch. To wit:

"'For years I have carried insurance on my life and home and jollied myself into thinking that this was all the protection a husband and father could throw around his family.

"'Last night a burglar broke into my neighbor's house. IF Reynolds had only had a revolver he --

"'That was enough for me! No temporizing with burglars in my home. I'm for real protection. I'll take this revolver I have in my hand, Mr. Clerk.'

"Are you ready -- when the time comes -- to do your duty by your burglar? Will you master him or will he master you? Will you give your family protection that is one jot short of real, full, complete protection?"

Home defense is nothing new, of course. And while it might be unusual for today's well-armed American to defend his or her castle with a five-shot .32 or an eight-shot .22, the mindset behind that Iver Johnson ad is as relevant now as it was in 1917.

* * *
I'll cap this post with one more 1917 ad, a two-page spread pushing Remington's rimfire rifles and ammunition.

Contrary to popular belief

Election Day is less than six weeks away. We, the People, seem to be in an anti-incumbent mood these days, seasoned with rhetoric about (or lip-service to) "returning to constitutional principles."

Please grant me, at least for the duration of this post, my contention that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is the most fundamental of constitutional principles. It's the one and only right that empowers us, if necessary, to defend with force our other precious liberties.

So it would seem, then, that a principled People would be looking for staunch Second Amendment advocates to supplant the bums who now hold office. Everyone knows that means getting behind right-wing Republicans and conservative Tea Party candidates -- right?

Welcome to The Great State of Ohio, where a Democratic governor is up for re-election and conventional wisdom [sic] takes a long lunch.

Gov. Ted Strickland, a steelworker's son from Lucasville, came to the office after several terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a Democrat raised in southern Ohio he wears the label "progressive" more comfortably than he does "liberal," even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2008.

Strickland has helped to repair much of the damage that the previous governor -- Bob Taft, a Republican -- did to our Second Amendment rights. (Why Ohioans put a Boston-born lawyer in that office for eight years is beyond me.) Strickland's record as governor and, before that, as congressman has earned him an A+ grade from the National Rifle Association and the endorsement of both the NRA and the Buckeye Firearms Association.

Opposing incumbent Strickland's bid for a second term is John Kasich, a Pennsylvania native and former congressman representing Ohio's 12th District. Many FOXNews viewers will remember "From the Heartland with John Kasich" and his occasional stand-ins for Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. While he's a loyal Republican, he expresses his values with a moderation which annoys wingnuts in search of ideological purity.

I don't care that Kasich worked as a managing director of Lehman Brothers until it imploded in 2008. I do care that as a congressman he voted on the side of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban -- five times -- and against repealing the oppressive DC gun ban that ultimately was neutered by the Heller decision. And that's not the half of it.

His NRA grades: C- overall, with a flurry of Fs on crucial tests.

Obviously, Kasich and Strickland defy partisan stereotypes. Neither is a litmus-test candidate, and for that I'm grateful. Each manifests the kind of thoughtful independence that has my respect (if not always my agreement on specific issues).

There's no perfect candidate in this or any race, but from a constitutional perspective I believe that Ted Strickland would give Ohio a more principled four years than John Kasich would.

Passing strange

We were reminded yesterday afternoon of a colossal irony -- that the American military personnel who swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" often are prevented from exercising their rights under that Constitution.

"As a matter of course, we don't carry weapons. This is our home," said Ft. Hood post commander Lt. Gen. Bob Cone in the wake of a mass shooting that killed 13 and wounded 30.

I won't presume to suggest that the U.S. Army established this policy thoughtlessly or that it should be rescinded. I observe only its inevitably tragic result.

Prohibiting the lawful carry of defensive weapons, whether within the bounds of a military installation or in the larger civilian world, creates so-called "unarmed victims zones." By statute, it cedes murderous advantage to the madman, the terrorist, the criminal.

It charges "a well-regulated militia," as defined by the enemies of Liberty, with defending the citizenry. So despite the fact that military police and civilian officers arrived quickly at the scene of yesterday's massacre -- before neutralizing the threat, at least two first responders were hit by gunfire -- their bravery and dedication didn't alter reality.

When seconds count, help is just minutes away.

That's not good enough -- not for me, not for my family and not for my country. This is, to echo Gen. Cone, my home. I stand prepared to defend it.

Ohio gun owners win again

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled yesterday that state law giving Ohioans the right to carry concealed weapons overrules a city's ability to deny that right and otherwise regulate firearms. The narrow 4-3 decision also is expected to invalidate restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" by cities like Columbus and Cleveland.

Central to the case was a 2004 state law that overruled local bans and ordinances requiring registration, waiting periods, and trigger locks. A measure reinforcing that statewide policy was passed in 2006 and then vetoed by Republican then-Gov. Bob Taft, but the legislature voted to override the veto.

Yesterday's victory, spearheaded by Ohioans for Concealed Carry, comes on the heels of the enactment of Ohio S.B. 184 -- which brought "Castle Doctrine" and other benefits to law-abiding Ohio gun owners -- and the landmark Heller decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those of us who cherish our individual right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by both the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, would seem to be living in the best of times. And while it's true that we've made significant progress in reclaiming our constitutional rights, we remain under siege by those who exemplify the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

We have our liberty -- for now -- but we must never forget its price: eternal vigilance.