The Worst President of My Lifetime


.

I was born in 1945, not long after Harry Truman succeeded Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President of the United States.  Thus, in my lifetime, 12 different men have held that office.  I recently had occasion to post a Facebook comment and engage in a conversation about the one I consider the worst of the 12.

Sadly, as presidents go, it has been pretty much downhill slide since 1945.  Only 2 of the 12 presidents since then make it into the Top 10 all time in the collective opinions of presidential scholars and surveys … and they are the first 2 of my lifetime, Harry S. Truman (7th) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (tie for 8th).  See Note 1 below.

The first 4 of the 12 are also the top 4 on my personal list of Best Presidents of my lifetime (I disagree with the collection of scholarly surveys only in the reversed rankings of Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy):

1st — Harry S Truman

2nd — John F. Kennedy

3rd — Dwight D. Eisenhower

4th — Lyndon B. Johnson

Which is why it’s been pretty much downhill ever since.  However, it is not the top of my list that concerns me here — rather it is the bottom, the Worst President of my lifetime.

My Facebook comment was motivated by this graphic from DemocraticUnderground.com …Iraq 10 Years Later 2003-2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017106524

… which prompted me to observe that George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime.  Of course, I also lived through the presidency of Richard Nixon and once thought I would never see a worse excuse for president than Tricky Dick.  Unfortunately, my expectation in that regard was not very prescient.

I fault Nixon largely for his duplicitous and condescending attitude toward the American people and the disgrace he brought to his office.  Ultimately, I rank him ahead of Bush II largely because of his foreign policy accomplishment of visiting China and opening up an economic dialogue between the U.S. and China.  Bush had no such saving grace and not a single presidential accomplishment of historical note.  See Note 2 below.

On the other hand, his duplicity matches or exceeds that of Nixon in audacity and scope.  By far the most significant (and ultimately horrific) of his deceptions were the falsities upon which he justified the invasion of Iraq.

Bush and his cronies advanced two major themes in support of this war — first, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which posed a threat to the security of the United States;  and second, that Saddam Hussein was somehow in league with al-Qa’ida and played a role in the 9-11 attacks on the U.S.

Neither claim was true and there is good reason to believe that Bush knew that the supposed intelligence on which these claims were based was exaggerated, misleading or downright false.

In the recently aired documentary “Hubris: Selling the Iraq War”, MSNBC provided the best look to date at just how the people of this country were mis-led by the Bush administration:

http://tv.msnbc.com/shows/hubris-selling-the-iraq-war/

In the documentary, declassified documents — and insiders talking on camera for the first time — reveal details on how President Bush and his team justified and marketed a war they had already decided to wage.

As more and more classified materials are declassified, and as insiders speak out, the truth will show Bush for what he was … and the picture will not be pretty. “Hubris: Selling the War in Iraq” is just the beginning of that process.

And for those who dislike or don’t trust MSNBC as a source of accurate information, how about the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which in 2006 issued its “Report on Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments”?  This bi-partisan committee was initially chaired by republican Pat Roberts of Kansas and later by democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

This press release by the committee discusses the report …

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

… and the entire 153 page pdf version of it is available here for review:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-109srpt331/pdf/CRPT-109srpt331.pdf

In the press release, the Senate committee, among other things, says:

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.”

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
 
Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
 
The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
 
The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that there were no WMD’s in Iraq and that Iraq was not allied with al Qa’ida in its terroristic attacks on the US. Furthermore, no one in the Bush administration had any viable plan for what should be done in Iraq once military operations ended.

The DemocraticUnderground.com graphic reproduced above also actually underestimates the total costs of the war in Iraq.

The Office of Management and Budget now estimates that the cost of combat operations will total approximately $822 billion; another $733 billion has been spent on care for wounded veterans and homeland security expenses related to the wars; future medical care of veterans is estimated to total $490 billion; and the interest on the money borrowed to fund the wars will total approximately $4 trillion by the time the debt is repaid sometime after 2050.

It has also proved not to be the case, as some in the administration claimed, that Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of the war.

And none of that includes the costs of foreign aid for rebuilding Iraq or the foreign aid paid to Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries in the region to secure their cooperation (such as it is) in the war effort.

The death toll cited in the Democratic Underground article is very conservative; some estimates of the civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan are as high as 330,000 or more.

There are other reasons to consider the Bush administration the worst of my lifetime: his tax policies have led to an economic crisis in the country; the response of his administration to Hurricane Katrina was a disgrace; and he vetoed a stem cell research bill that might have provided medical and health benefits to Americans for generations to come.  See Note 3 below.

A long time friend of mine criticized my Facebook comments about Bush and asked me what I would have done in response to the 9-11 attacks.

What I would have done is of no real consequence. But, I would rather have seen our president respond with an all-out effort to find Osama bin Laden and others who were responsible for that attack, rather than going off on a wild tangent in Iraq, a country which had no connection whatsoever with 9-11.

There is no doubt that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and his sons. That, however, can be said about hundreds, perhaps thousands or even millions of people — does that mean the US government should summarily go around killing people that we think are “bad” for the world? I think not. And there is flip side to that question — is the world better off without the 330,000 or more other Iraqis who were killed in the war? Was it worth all of those lives (and those of the Americans and our allies) who were killed? I think the answer to that question is a clear and unequivocal “no”.

With respect to radical Islam, protecting ourselves against radicals of any stripe is a proper governmental function and I support all reasonable efforts to do so.  The war in Iraq was just not such a reasonable effort. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, but was not a radical Islamist. Rather, he was a secular ruler who ruthlessly suppressed Shi’a Muslims and elevated minority Sunnis to power only if they were also members of the Ba-athist party (a secular, rather than religious, organization). Ergo, invading Iraq and removing Hussein from power had absolutely nothing to do with any perceived need to protect the US against radical Islam.

Thus, taking everything into consideration, it is an inescapable conclusion that George W. Bush was the worst president of my lifetime.

_________________________

Ranking all of the presidents of my lifetime:

1st — Harry S Truman — See Note 4 below.

2nd — John F. Kennedy

3rd — Dwight D. Eisenhower

4th — Lyndon B. Johnson

5th — William J. Clinton

6th — Ronald Reagan

7th — George H. W. Bush

8th — Barack H. Obama

9th — Gerald R. Ford

10th — Jimmy Carter

11th — Richard M. Nixon

12th — George W. Bush

_________________________

Note 1 — For a comprehensive listing of presidential rankings, see this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Scroll down to the rankings chart and see the final column of the aggregate ranking of each president based on these various scholarly surveys.

Note 2 — Bush ranks 34th of 43 presidents on the aggregate scholars list.  I suspect that as we gain historical perspective, his position will solidify in the bottom quarter of presidents and that his stature will, if anything, decline.

Note 3 — For another view on the deficiencies of the Bush presidency, see this website, which cites 31 reasons why Bush was a bad president:

http://www.bengarvey.com/2008/08/07/31-reasons-why-bush-is-a-bad-president/

I don’t personally agree with all of the reasons stated in this litany of deficiencies.  For example, I don’t fault any president for taking vacation time, as the presidency is a stressful job that always goes with the president and everyone needs to be able to relax and get away from that kind of pressure.

Obviously, however, I do agree with his ultimate conclusion.

Note 4 — Truman had only a middle initial — “S” — and no middle name.  He also used no period after that initial;  hence, Harry S Truman, not Harry S. Truman.

Advertisements

“No One is Coming to Take Your Guns” … Yet


.

In an effort to re-assure people that stricter gun control laws are no threat to law-abiding gun owners, gun control advocates often say, “No one is coming to take your guns”.

Yet.

A recent example is a column published on Saturday, February 16th, by Sam Pollak of the Oneonta (NY) Daily Star:

http://thedailystar.com/columns/x1525014201/No-one-is-coming-to-take-your-guns

In this column, Pollak asserts:

“I have some very disappointing news for some of the more-virulent foes of sane gun-control legislation.  If you’re what the National Rifle Association loves to call a “law-abiding American citizen,” no one is going to take away your guns.

Not the federal government.  Not the state government.  Not the local government.  Not the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard.  Not the United Nations.”

Obviously, Mr. Pollak hasn’t been paying attention.  Legislators in at least five states, including his home state of New York, have recently introduced gun control proposals which would include, to at least some degree, confiscation of firearms which are lawfully owned by citizens of those states.

Perhaps even more important than possible gun confiscation legislation is what might happen in one of those disaster situations, or MCEs, discussed in my previous blog post.  After reading that post, #2 son Matt brought to my attention one aspect of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans of which I was unaware or which I had forgotten — the confiscation of civilian firearms at the very time they were most needed by their owners.

On September 8, 2005, New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass, without any legal authority whatsoever and in blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, issued an order to local police, the Army National Guard and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian owned firearms in the City of New Orleans.  He said, “No one will be able to be armed.  Guns will be taken.  Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”

Pursuant to this order, New Orleans cops seized privately owned weapons without benefit of search or arrest warrants and, sometimes, by use of excessive force.

One such excessive force incident was the seizure from 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie of a revolver.  Konie had declined to evacuate her home, which was well-provisioned, and kept the revolver for self-protection.

Several police officers entered her home and demanded that she surrender the revolver.  When she refused to do so, they took it from her by force, fracturing her shoulder in the process, then took her into custody for refusing to give up her weapon.

Unfortunately for the cops, the incident was video recorded and became the basis of virulent criticism of the confiscation order and the police tactics.  Several lawsuits ensued and, on September 23rd, a federal court issued an order restraining any further confiscation of lawfully owned weapons.

In response to the criticism (and the lawsuits), the city initially denied having confiscated any weapons.  Ultimately, however, the city admitted that more than 1000 weapons had been illegally seized.  And, despite several court orders that the weapons be returned, it was more than two years before this was finally accomplished.

As a result of these seizures, Louisiana enacted a 2006 law which prohibits confiscation of firearms during an emergency, unless the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to a police officer or other person, or if it is part of a criminal investigation during which seizure would otherwise be lawful.  Subsequently, several other states passed similar laws.  And, as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, a federal law prohibiting the seizure of lawfully owned private weapons during an emergency was enacted.

There are some law enforcement officials who understand and are prepared to uphold the law and the 2nd Amendment.  A group of Montana sheriffs has spoken out on the subject, vowing that they would not enforce any unconstitutional new federal gun laws.

Lewis and Clark County Sheriff Leo Dutton, in a written statement, announced:  “You will not find the Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office deputies participating in ANY confiscation of firearms in an unlawful manner.”

In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Powell County sheriff Scott Howard said:  “We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”

For more information about these sheriffs, see this Helena, Montana, Independent Record article and photo:

http://helenair.com/news/local/sheriff-i-m-not-going-to-take-your-gun/article_ff94517a-6d8a-11e2-9deb-0019bb2963f4.html

Montana Sheriffs Scott Howard & Leo Dutton

Montana Sheriffs Scott Howard & Leo Dutton

Nevertheless, there are plenty of government officials like New Orleans Police Superintendent Compass who are more than ready to ignore the law and the Constitution in their zeal to disarm people.  That they may claim, as they often do, that they are acting out of concerns for “public safety” does not justify their unlawful actions.

This kind of official mentality brings to mind the saying — often mis-attributed to Thomas Jefferson — “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.  Whoever may have actually said it, the sentiment expressed remains valid.  Today, on the subject of private ownership of firearms, it is necessary to assert that vigilance against our own government officials and in favor of our constitutional rights.

Gun Control and Your Right to Defend Yourself, Your Home and Your Loved Ones


.

Following up on the conclusion to my previous post, two points to discuss here:

1)  Gun control from the perspective of those who have actually used guns in defense of themselves, their homes and their loved ones;  and

2)  Why and under what possible future circumstances the availability of firearms for such protection would be desirable, if not essential, to the survival not only of individuals, but our society as a whole.

.

Your Right to Defend Yourself, Your Home and Your Loved Ones

Lost in the gun control debate, which has focused almost exclusively on the negative uses of firearms by criminals, is any discussion of the right of people to use guns to defend themselves and protects their homes and families.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much available in the way of reliable statistics about such use — in part for the same reasons that the subject is ignored in the gun control debate.  One nut killing a number of people with a gun is BIG news.  A homeowner using a gun to protect himself and his family against criminals rates barely a mention in the local newspaper and none whatsoever in the national news.

A recent article by Paul Barrett on the Bloomberg BusinessWeek website summarized the statistical dispute over defensive use of firearms. This article is available here:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

Barrett notes that one 1994 study (by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University) extrapolated a result of 2 million self-defense uses per year.  Conversely, an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year.

Finally, Barrett notes, “… other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.”  In support of this statement, he cites a 1997 article by Tom W. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, in the Northwestern Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, which is available here:

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/smitht1.htm

So, what does this all mean in terms of the gun violence/control debate?

There is, of course, no way of knowing how many innocent lives are saved every year by these defensive gun uses.  Not every such use saves a life, but some assuredly must do so.  What percentage?  5%?  10%?

One gun rights source, Second Amendment Sisters, in an article entitled “Nine Myths About Gun Control”, estimates 20%. See the concluding sentence of the discussion of Myth #1 in this article here:

http://rense.com/general76/mths.htm

This estimate, in turn, is based on the 1994 article “Guns in the Medical Literature — A Failure of Peer Review” by Edgar A. Suter, MD, in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, which is available in full here:

http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html#abstract

Dr. Suter observes, correctly in my opinion, that:  “The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected ….” by defensive gun use.

Gary Kleck’s analysis of defensive gun use notes that:  “Each year about 1500-2800 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding American civilians in justifiable or excusable homicides, far more than are killed by police officers.”

So, for purposes of this discussion, let’s use the lowest estimate of defensive gun uses per year, the NCVS estimate of 100,000.  And let’s assume that only one in ten of such uses saves an innocent life.  In that case, the total number of lives saved is 10,000, at a cost of between 1500-2800 dead bad guys.  Sounds like a pretty fair trade off to me.

Furthermore, it also means that every year guns save nearly as many innocent lives as they take … and that’s a low estimate.  If we use the “more accurate” estimate of 250,000 to 370,000 defensive gun uses per year, guns are saving upwards of three times as many innocent lives as they are taking.

What this means in terms of the gun control debate is this — the more we restrict access by law-abiding citizens to self-defense firearms, the fewer innocent lives those citizens and their firearms will save.  And, since it seems likely that most crooks won’t any more attention to stricter gun control laws than they currently pay to the existing gun control laws, the relative rate of innocent lives lost compared to those saved will rise.  In other words, the stricter the gun control, the higher the relative loss of innocent lives.

All of which says nothing about the other “protective benefits of guns” — “the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected“.

.

Self-Defense in Case of a National Emergency

Earlier today, I posted on Facebook a comment about the recent Public Service Announcement by Milwaukee County WI Sheriff David Clarke in which he urged citizens to arm themselves for self-protection.  In this PSA, Sheriff Clarke said:

“You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed or you can fight back.  But, are you prepared?  Consider taking a certified safety course in handling of firearms so you can defend yourself until we get there.  You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.

Sheriff Clarke’s full 32 second PSA is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8TCx-sM1vw

My comment about this announcement is here:

http://www.facebook.com/jamest.reilly.3

I said:

“If you think that the government — national, state or local — will always be able to protect you in an emergency, just ask the folks in New Orleans. And, even if it is a personal emergency only (such as a home invasion), how quickly do you think the local cops will get there to rescue you? Ten minutes? Five? Two? Too late in any event. Your personal safety is your personal responsibility. Have a family? They are your responsibility, too. Not the government’s. Not the local sheriff or chief of police. You are your family’s first line of defense and, perhaps, the last as well.”

In the U.S. government’s assessment of its own response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, it was noted that:

“Almost immediately following Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, law and order began to deteriorate in New Orleans. The city’s overwhelmed police force–70 percent of which were themselves victims of the disaster—did not have the capacity to arrest every person witnessed committing a crime, and many more crimes were undoubtedly neither observed by police nor reported. The resulting lawlessness in New Orleans significantly impeded—and in some cases temporarily halted—relief efforts and delayed restoration of essential private sector services such as power, water, and telecommunications.”

This comment appears in the section of the report entitled “Critical Challenge: Public Safety and Security”.  The report in full is available here:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned/chapter5.html

In this regard, of course, New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is not unique.  Any time there is a breakdown in civil order, crime is increasingly prevalent as civil disorder increases.  And, all too often, in the midst of such civil disorder, governmental authorities, including law enforcement officials, will simply not be available to protect most citizens.  As Sheriff Clarke says, “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.”  If the bad guys have guns and you don’t, it is going to be difficult or impossible for you to fulfill that duty.

In a 2012 “Mass Violence & Emergency National Training Conference” program entitled “Dealing with Secondary Crime Arising from Mass Casualty Events”, several key points are addressed:

1)  During major disasters (“Mass Casualty Events” or MCEs), people are more vulnerable, local law enforcement officers are distracted or overwhelmed, and criminals can exploit the situation.

2)  As a result, property crimes, including looting, are common.

3)  Regarding Hurricane Katrina in particular, “a growing body of evidence suggests there were more storm-related sexual assaults than previously known.

4)  “Disasters contribute to a significant increase in domestic violence, including acts such as domestic-related criminal homicide, rape, aggravated assault, stalking, and violent threats or intimidation.”

5)  “An increase in human trafficking often comes in the wake of a natural disaster.”

6)  The incidence of hate crimes can rise after a major disaster:  “Post-disaster hate crimes have consisted of telephone, internet, mail, and face-to-face threats; minor assaults as well as assaults with dangerous weapons and assaults resulting in serious injury and death; and vandalism, shootings, arson and bombings directed at homes, businesses, and places of worship.”  (emphasis added)

The complete slide presentation for this program is available here:

https://ncjtc.org/CONF/Ovcconf/AttMat/Dealing%20with%20Secondary%20Crime_Crimando.pdf

In short, during a major disaster, you are more likely to become a victim of crime, including violent crimes like rape, aggravated assault, arson and murder, than at other times.  At the same time, local law enforcement is being overwhelmed by the demands of the disaster.  Meaning that those upon whom you might otherwise depend to protect yourself against increased crime are simply not available to do so.  At such times, more than ever, you have a duty to protect yourself and your family.  How are you going to do so?

And what happens in the event of a more generalized breakdown in civil order.  Localized disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, are bad enough.  But what happens in the event of a more widespread disaster?

In an earlier post about gun control …

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/what-now-for-the-second-amendment-gun-control/

… I referred to the book One Second After by William Forstchen, in which the author fictionalized what might happen in the US in the aftermath of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.  For those unfamiliar with EMP, such an event could conceivably shut down all electricity supply in large portions of the US.  That would mean no electrically operated devices would work — some obvious examples, computers, televisions, radios and telephones.  Less obvious examples, refrigerators & freezers, microwave ovens, washers & dryers, both interior and exterior lighting, and even most modern motor vehicles (the engines of which are operated by electrical commands).

Forstchen’s book focuses on how one American community in North Carolina deals with the consequences of an EMP attack.  And makes clear just how important having firearms for self-protection would be in the event of such an attack.

See Forstchen’s website for detailed discussions of EMP and how to prepare for such an attack:

http://www.onesecondafter.com/

In the section of this site entitled “Preparing for EMP” …

http://www.onesecondafter.com/pb/wp_194d9c9d/wp_194d9c9d.html

… Forstchen says:

You are on your own … for weeks, maybe months.   Those of you living in Louisiana, Mississippi and coastal Texas know what I mean.  Don’t count on the government to come to your rescue in a post EMP America.  Consider yourself on your own from “one second after,” the event.  Those who realize that now have the greatest chance of survival.”

With respect to personal security, Forstchen says:

“This is a tough one to discuss.  In 1999 I kinda chuckled at some friends who were convinced Y2K was going to wipe us out and I think were slightly disappointed when it did not. I am not some right wing gun fanatic who sees conspiracies lurking round every corner, but I do take personal security seriously. This is a personal choice you will have to make on your own, I can’t advise other than to say this:

“There is a percentage of our population who will view a post EMP world as a paradise, where their system of survival, their personal greed, their willingness to use any means possible to survive will come to the fore. Yes, it is a plot point of the novel, but it is also a harsh reality. There are places in this world, at this very moment, where someone would kill you for a can of food. Someday, that could be America.   

“If you do not own a gun but should decide to do so now, please get the proper training.  I was fortunate in that my father was a firearms instructor during WWII and my training from him was the best, a training I have passed on to my daughter.  Always remember the valid statistics that a weapon in your house is an increased danger to you and your family, especially without proper training of all family members and not just yourself, but on the other side, it might be the crucial factor of survival in a post EMP world.  If you are unfamiliar with firearms but decide to purchase one, talk to the experts, you will find your local police are great guys to point you in the proper and safe direction.  I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  I know that in some areas you cannot obtain that. If you can, the training to get the permit is superb and again crucial to your own safety and that of your family and does insure that your having a loaded weapon on you is legal.”  (emphasis added)

And, if you think his book is science fiction and farfetched, see the Wikipedia article on EMP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

And this Heritage Foundation article about Congressional hearings on the subject:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/11/congressional-hearing-raise-emp-awareness-now/

The possibility of an EMP event and the potential consequences thereof are science fact, not science fiction.

And keep in mind that an EMP event can also result from natural occurrences, such as a major solar flare, and not just as a result of a nuclear attack.  The website “Disaster Survival Resources” …

http://www.disaster-survival-resources.com/emp.html

… provides a relatively minor example of what can happen as a result of a solar flare:

“On March 13th, 1989 a huge solar induced magnetic storm that played havoc with the ionosphere, and the earth’s magnetic field. This storm, the second largest storm experienced in the past 50 years, totally shut down Hydro-Quebec, the power grid servicing Canada’s Quebec province.”

As we grow increasingly dependent on electronically controlled devices, we also become increasingly vulnerable to the adverse effects of an EMP event.  And, having the ability to protect ourselves in case of such an event becomes increasingly important.

.

Conclusion

You have a right to defend yourself, your home and your loved ones.  You have that right today, tomorrow and every day thereafter … and under all circumstances.  You cannot know in advance when it may become necessary for you to do so, either against a routine criminal assault or during a localized or national emergency.

In fact, as noted by Sheriff Clarke, you not only have a right to defend yourself, your home and your loved ones, “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

Do not allow the government to impair your ability to fulfill that duty by diluting or eliminating your 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” … or by restricting that right in such a way as to make it impossible to effectively use those arms should it become necessary to do so.  Do not succumb to the fear-mongering of those who would disarm you, or unduly restrict your ability to use your weapons, in the name of “public safety”.