Now, I would like to put forth a modest suggestion regarding how law-abiding gun owners can prove once and for all, and without any lingering doubts how we might be able to prove that an armed society is preferable to a disarmed society.

I previously suggested that folks living in the PRK change their residence, as I have, to Nevada or Arizona and leave the socialist elitists do deal with the problems of an unarmed population.

Now, however, I am suggesting that everyone, living in any hostile state move to any gun-friendly state. Thus, leaving the anti-gun nuts, people who believe that violence against violence is wrong, those who choose to remain unarmed, but who reap the benefits and protection of those of us who choose to be armed and the cultural elitists who know better than we what is best for us, to the machinations of the armed criminal element.

I would hypothesize that our point would be made in a relatively short time period.

Now, I can only make an educated guess at the outcome but allow me to make a couple of predictions.

I would predict that the violent crime rate in these anti-self-protection zones would increase dramatically. I say dramatically, not just a little bit.

I would predict that in answer to the increase in violent crime, the ruling elite would deem it necessary to enact even more useless anti-self-protection laws.

I would predict that the crime rate in the states that had the largest population of gun owners would drop dramatically.

I would predict that the law enforcement community would soon decry the departure of the law-abiding gun owner.

I would predict that the ruling elite in the states we left would never acknowledge that our previous presence was a deterring factor to crime.

I would predict that the rest of the country would be obliged to sit up and take notice of the increase in crime after the gun owners left certain states.

Most of you who are reading this will know why I would make such predictions without my having to enumerate them, however, because I get paid by the word, I will mention some of the salient points involved with disarming a society.

Rwanda - present day

Boznia/Kosovo/Serbia - present day - Milosevic; et al

Communist China - 1948 to 1952; present day - Mao Zedong; et all

Germany - 1930's - Hitler

Yugoslavia - 1945 to 1980 - Tito

U.S.S.R. - 1929 to 1953 - Stalin

Haiti - 1950s to 1986 - Duvalier family; 1990s

Japan

United States - 1800s - United States Government/U.S. Cavalry

United States, Los Angeles, CA - Watts riot August of 1965; riots of the Rodney King verdict - April 29, 1992

Cambodia - 1970s - Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot

Uganda -1970s - Idi Amin

Turkish Armenians - 1890s ; 1915 to 1917 - Turkish Army

Guatemala - 1964 to 1981

There are many, many more examples of violence perpetrated upon a country's unarmed citizens by the military or police, disputes between ethnic groups, and marauding criminals.

These examples are well documented. Some of them are recent enough that there are living survivors, or they may be detailed on the daily news.

Not only could it happen here, it has happened here. Therefore, I again submit that we should never allow it to happen to us. And, if it does in fact happen here again to those weak-willed, spineless people who may allow it to happen to them, so be it.

I don't mean to be callous here. I abhor the thought of any death by any means, natural or unnatural. Death is our enemy and it will come soon enough with the passage of time. We are not, however, obliged to invite death to visit us any sooner than is necessary. I, for one, am growing tired of giving away our rights because some moron or group of morons, decide they "feel" that a civilized society doesn't need guns. I am not willing to allow myself to be disarmed simply to become a co-victim with others who decide that they don't want to be armed and that I shouldn't be armed either.

People who won't fight with me don't deserve my protection. People who try to impede my ability to fight deserve what they receive when the fight comes to them.