Friday, April 13, 2012

Gun Control

The Gun Control Mania

This topic is always a hot-button type, for those who are each side of the argument, feel their own view is incontrovertible, supported by statistics, and no explanation can argue against their logic. This is a particularly long one, dear reader, so feel free to skip it and retain your pre-existing opinion on this subject; I won't be offended.

The recent tragic case of Trayvon Martin is of course being used to raise this issue once again. The "Stand your ground" law being at the root of the debate, which really is not a part of the issue since the prerequisites of that particular law are not met. The horrible massacre at the attempted assassination of congresswoman Gabriel Giffords is also pointed to, for the huge capacity magazines used by the maniac. Large capacity magazines need to be outlawed, they cry, for no hunter needs that, and if you shoot for sport then you can change magazines a bit more often we are told.

We Americans are almost unique in the world of today, for our citizens are armed, and fairly well armed at that. How barbaric, the sophisticated elites love to whine, that we have a "wild west" sort of mindset. How ignorant a view that truly is.

What is missed in all the anti-gun arguments, is that human beings commit the crimes; regardless of how many gun laws you may put into place, a criminal is still going to commit a crime. Laws do not matter to the criminal. Is it better to be beaten to death with a lead pipe, than shot? Will crime stop if all guns are taken away from citizenry? One look around the world shows that outlook to be false.

Guns in America prevent crime and tragic results far more often than is ever admitted in the news media. Very frequently, just the sight of a gun in the hands of a citizen is enough to prevent the crime from being committed. Criminals do not want to be hurt or killed while committing their crimes and will choose the unarmed target before the armed one in most every case.

Then there is the question of just what sort of guns we ought to be allowed to have? The 2nd Amendment was written by men whom had lived through a violent revolution against one of the worst tyrants of his time, mad King George. The arms are not specified in that amendment, for the founding fathers wanted to leave that definition vague; the intention clearly was that the people would be able to own and carry weapons equal to those of the military of that day. The implication to our own day is clear as day - for if the weapons are limited to, for instance, shotguns, then a tyrant could fairly easily develop countermeasures to overcome shotguns and impose a dictatorship. The firearms are not there just for us to be able to hunt, or to shoot at a shooting range, but for our own final line of personal defence and even more importantly, though never spoken, as a final and ultimate guarantee of our collective liberty.

Oh and I can prove that assertion too, before you get upset; during the First World War, the Kaiser of Germany had a plan set before him to invade the eastern USA. The forces he could use were available due to Germany having just defeated Russia, so they could pull out some 40 divisions of infantry to throw onto America's shores and seize some of our major cities which are also some of our main armament factories. The plan had been drawn up in 1903, but would not need a great deal of adaptation in 1917. The German Imperial Navy was very nearly a match for the famous British fleet and with a little luck, could have quite easily ferried that force across and even maintained them. The Kaiser, lucky for us, scratched that plan and instead concentrated on trying to knock France out of the war before the American doughboys arrived, but one of the key reasons why he chose to cross off the plan to invade America was that they knew that Americans own guns en masse; his forces might have been able to seize the entire coast from Boston to New Jersey, but would very quickly fighting a million or more citizens, for every deer hunter had a hunting rifle and most all of them could hit their target.

Now you may well pooh-pooh that as ancient history, or take the position that the British and American navies would have sunk the German High Seas Fleet before a single storm trooper put a hobnailed boot on the Long Island beaches, but that is really an open question. Look at how the one major engagement between the vaunted British Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet turned out, the massive sea battle of Jutland; while the British claimed a victory, it was the Germans who really accomplished what they desired and inflicted considerably heavier casualties on their enemy. It is quite possible that another battle, with a competent admiral in command of the German forces, might well have defeated the British and Americans. Sheer numbers are never a good way to judge the probable outcome of any battle.

This is not even the only example either. Early in the Second World War, the Japanese Imperial command proposed a plan to withdraw some 50 divisions of infantry from China to invade the USA, which would have depended on the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor being a success which did turn out that way. The plan would have demanded that the Japanese forces go onto the defensive entirely in China, and a very long sea supply chain subject to interdiction by the enemy (Allies) but was certainly within their capabilities. The brilliant Japanese admiral Yamamoto argued against this bold plan on several grounds, for even though by their own wargaming it appeared that they could have likely reached the Missouri river before the USA could assemble enough land forces to stop them, once again that factor that Americans are, by and large, an armed citizenry. Yamamoto's troops would have every deer hunter in the country taking pot shots at them, attacking supply trains, a guerilla war on a scale never seen before (or since) with vast casualties that would be difficult to replace across the wide Pacific. The American citizens being in effect a vast armed militia, which legally we are, represent a very real last line of defence that an enemy conqueror would have a difficult time overcoming.

All of this may seem anachronistic for some, but is very real. Our founding fathers knew that when the citizens of a nation become unarmed, it is all too easy for a tyrant to establish a dictatorship. Trying to remove that dictatorship, once established and the people diarmed, is almost always an extremely bloody affair that is by no means certain. Take a lesson from the Arab Spring we have been witnessing; look at the terrible fight it took to rid Libya of Gaddhafi and his cronies, or the ongoing bloodletting in Syria. What is different between Libya and Syria? In Libya, the citizens were allowed to own firearms - only hunting type weapons, but in Syria gun control is far stricter and look at the results. In Syria, thousands of people have been butchered, and the people defeated over and over by the well armed military of the dictator, while in Libya, even though at first outgunned, the citizens were able to put up enough of a fight to gain control over a large part of the country and hold on long enough to win international support, leading to air support that finally helped tip the balance. No hunting rifle will stop a tank of course, and this brings us back to the types of weapons which citizens ought to be allowed to own.

If you think I am proposing that citizens ought to own some tanks, missiles and maybe even jet fighters, you are correct. That may sound extreme, but in the hands of a law abiding citizen, that tank, missile or jet fighter is not going to harm anyone. However should a tyrant establish a dictatorship in America, these weapons would be a very real threat to that dictator and his supporters. I don't expect that this opinion will be popular, for most people tend to think in terms of what they do and wish, so, for instance a person who has never hunted and doesn't shoot can easily say "I see no reason why you should have an assault rifle since I don't have one." Well I don't own a yacht either, so should we outlaw them? Yachts have caused tragic accidents at sea after all, and benefit only those wealthy enough to own them. The popular speed boats are another example - sure you may enjoy roaring over the waves at top speed, but many people are injured and killed with them, and then too, these same speedy sea craft are the vehicles of choice by the drug smugglers. Ready to surrender your jet boat? Remember what the founding fathers wanted for the citizens - arms equal to those of the military of the day. At least equal enough to contest the matter and make the imposition of a dictatorship or monarchy a difficult thing to accomplish.

What is the first thing that a tyrant does, on seizing power? Disarm the population, leaving the weapons only in the hands of his forces. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao Tse Tung did it, Gaddhafi did it rather unsuccessfully, and if you think there are no megalomaniacs or would-be dictators threatening the world or the USA today, you are indeed deluding yourself. There are people in the USA today working to establish a Fascist dictatorship, and some of these fellows have been pretending to support your right to bear arms. Beware of these people for this is the sort of approach that leads to a dictator gaining power. Hitler was elected, remember that, and Winston Churchill warned us that when Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the American flag!

Now my liberal friends, I do not expect that any argument I can present to you will ever sway your views, but rest assured I will defend your right to disagree and to choose not to own weapons, just remember that weapons in the hands of armed citizens are what established the United States in the first place or we might still be a colonial possession of Britain, or some other foreign power. Would-be dictators are still around today, even right here in the USA, don't fool yourself; they have only become far more sophisticated in their approach and far better at concealing their true designs.

I could give you an example of a media personality, that on the very eve of the assassination attempt and mass murder around Gabriel Giffords, a man who went on the air nation wide to proclaim that "The First Shot has been fired" and added "I will be your leader". He has since fallen into disfavor, but look at how far he got before it became apparent just how dangerous he truly was.

I don't like the classifications of "Liberal" and "Conservative" anyway, for in dividing us up along those lines we are distracted from some of the main points, that we all love our country, our children and our homes; that we may fight amongst ourselves over just how we will proceed and what sort of government services we will have, how to pay our bills and so on but we are all Americans, and to our enemies there is no such fine distinction. To those whom would dismantle our government and install that Fascist regime they dream of, in which the wealthy corporate masters become masters of all, as the inventor of Fascism described it a "marriage of corporate and government power", keep in mind that even those you are deceiving into supporting your program will turn on you the moment they perceive what you are driving toward. Some of us already see it.

To all you that wish to take away our guns, or limit the size of the magazines we may use, consider this; between 1990 and 2009 some 327, 069 Americans died violent, sudden and tragic deaths, every single one of which could have been avoided by outlawing the use a particular item. Think I am referring to guns? No. that is the deaths in traffic accidents! Ready to surrender your car or SUV now? Turn it in to the landfill, or recycling center and prevent un-needed deaths! Won't give up your vehicle? How about driving ONLY at the posted speed limits, at ALL times! Anyone whom has traveled on any American highway can attest that over 90% of you are all exceeding the speed limits, constantly. Oh that is different, you may say, but is it really? Speeding is a leading factor in a third of all traffic deaths, second only to alcohol. What is that now, you won't give up your lead foot? Look at all the death and tragedy this behavior and the murderous articles we call motor vehicles are causing, and all totally preventable. Death by gun is a fraction of what is killed on our highways, sad but true.

To wrap up this already lengthy tirade, please, don't tell me about your ideas that we should not be allowed to have guns or only certain kinds or limited magazines and so on. Yes we will have tragic crimes in which guns are used and people are killed or maimed, but that is a part of the price of the level of liberty we enjoy. Liberty makes for a messy, even bloody sort of civilization, with sometimes wild swings in government, terrible crimes and incomprehensible tragedies, but when compared to the sort of civilization in which you are not allowed to possess such weapons, you also must surrender your right to self government, to self expression, freedoms of speech, religion and very much all freedoms. North Korea is a prime example of a perfectly controlled society, and is it coincidence that they have no guns in private hands?

Freedom comes with a price, and yes it can be tragic but this is part of the price. Guns are the final and only guarantee that you will enjoy all those other freedoms we cherish. If you surrender your guns, all those other freedoms you cherish are instantly put at risk and rest assured, they will all be taken away. By then it will be too late. Remember Tianamen Square before you ask us to give up our arms again.

Ben Franklin uttered some words of wisdom on this subject that are frequently quoted, and it is not remiss to repeat them for too many seem to fail to understand it; those whom would surrender their liberties for some peace and security deserve neither. I think you will find that a majority of Americans will choose the dangers and yes even tragedies that go along with our possession of potent firearms, firearms even capable of killing police officers for no matter how good they may be today, tomorrow they may be the jack booted brownshirts serving a would-be dictator trying to seize power.

There is a short way to put this, and my apologies for the history lesson and statistics brought in, but remember this much: it is better to have that firearm, and on you, and never need it, than to need it and not have it.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

Lost Dutchman Gold Mine - What if it were found?

Suppose dear reader, you flip on your evening news on TV tomorrow evening, or pick up your morning newspaper, and see there in bold type:

"Famous Lost Dutchman Gold Mine Found!"

What would that mean for a treasure hunter that goes out hunting for that lost bonanza? Would you quit, give up the quest, stay home and put on the Golf channel or the Cooking channel? Sell off your equipment, books and maps, and take up roller skating? Maybe something less drastic, just start researching a different lost mine or buried treasure and devote your search efforts in that new direction?

Or would you continue to search the same mountains, the same wild areas where the gold mine of Waltz was hidden, in the knowledge that Waltz's gold mine was only ONE out of several lost mines that are still hidden in that mysterious region? Perhaps you are not aware of those other lost mines, for they do not have the fame attached to them and have never had books or movies done on them.

One example is the rose quartz gold mine of a man named Wagoner, spelled various ways in the old accounts including Waggoner, Wagonner etc and none seem to have found out his first name. He had come to Arizona due to lung problems, and lived in Pinal (now a famous ghost town) and spent his free time prospecting in the Superstition mountains. One day he found a ledge of rose quartz, loaded with gold. He mined enough to set himself up financially and left the area, giving a map and directions to the stage driver he had hitched a ride with many times, even had planted some trees around the ledge to help locate it again but no one ever has. The key landmark to find it is Miners Needle, rather than the more famous Weavers Needle associated with Waltz's lost mine, and but few treasure hunters are actively looking for this mine today. >

Then there is the not-so-famous black quartz gold mine of Apache Jack; several treasure authors have unwittingly mixed this story in with the Lost Dutchman out of ignorance of gold ores. The ore was a black quartz with little spots of gold visible, "like the stars in the sky" which is nothing like the gold ore of Waltz, which is a white quartz with large veins of gold visible. One version has it that Apache Jack was coaxed into leading two friends very near the mine, and they supposedly later found it, mining out several thousand dollars worth of that black quartz before the vein pinched out - but the vein itself could very well crop out elsewhere!

Another lost mine that is often confused with (and very frequently confabulated into the Dutchman legend) is the lost mine of Joe Deering. The mine he found was open to the sky, with numerous pieces of ore simply laying about on the surface. He picked up a number of them and showed them to friends at Silver King where he applied for a temporary job. The ore was rich, but the mine cerstainly doesn't sound anything like the one Jacob Waltz went to such lengths to conceal. Deering had a grubstake partner and by Colorado law, any mineral discovery he might make within a year would belong one-half ownership to the partner, and Deering wanted to cut him out so he took a job working at the famous Silver King. An accident occurred and Deering died of his injuries, and the mine location was lost. John Chuning had been told many of the clues to find it and spent many years hunting for it, but never did find Deering's lost mine.

Then there was the Mexican-Indian woman, interviewed by Sims Ely and at least one other treasure writer, who told of having accompanied her husband up into the Superstition mountains to mine gold; she recalled specifically that they would toss the earth in a blanket and allow the wind to separate out the gold, and that the kernels of gold were the size of kernels of wheat. Ely and other treasure writers assumed this has to be the same mine as Waltz had, but it is definitely not! The mining method she recalled was a good description of winnowing for gold, a very ancient method for mining a dry placer deposit, and Waltz's mine was a lode vein not a placer!

This is only scratching the surface, a little research on your part and you will learn that there are at least a dozen more mines, ledges and pockets that were once found but remain hidden today. None so famous as the Dutchman's mine of course, but were you to find one it should set you up financially pretty good. And at the bottom line, does it really matter if a rich gold mine is named the Lost Dutchman or the Lucky Leprechaun? Not to this treasure hunter it doesn't, and I would bet not for most of you either!

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.

Labels: , , , , ,

Business Logo design
Hit Counter
[Most Recent Quotes from] [Most Recent Quotes from] [Most Recent Quotes from]
[Most Recent Quotes from]
[Most Recent Quotes from]
[Most Recent Quotes from]
[Most Recent Quotes from]
[Most Recent Quotes from]
MORE More metal prices including TIN, TUNGSTEN etc click here /