Car Stops and the War on Terror

I have listened to the left repeat the same old arguments against the War on Terror for too long now. The two that drive me the most crazy are: "There were no weapons of mass destruction, so we have no right to be there," and "Why are we in Iraq? What about Saudi Arabia? That's where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, why don't we bomb them?"

Instead of replying with the obvious answers, I want to try a new perspective, and explain why those arguments are irrelevant with an analogy....Car Stops.

Let's say that there are three cars that I want to stop because I think that there may be drugs in the car. Car 1, I actually saw the drugs as they went into the car. Car 2, I did not see the drugs go in, but I know that the registered owner has a suspended driver's license, and I have no reason to believe that the driver is not the registered owner. And Car 3 I just have a hunch about, but no reason to stop the vehicle yet.

Now, with Car 1, since I saw the drugs go in, I can stop it, get the drugs, arrest the driver, etc. With Car 3, I have to wait for an infraction before I can stop the car. Hopefully, after the stop I will have some reason to confirm my hunch about the drugs, and proceed that way. It is harder to do, and takes more police work, but it can be done, and is done quite a bit.

Now let's consider Car 2. Since I know the registered owner has a suspended license, and since ther is no reason for me to believe that the registered owner is not the driver, (for example, the driver is male and the owner is female) I can stop the car to check to see who is driving. Going further, let's say that the driver is not the owner, and has a valid license, but during the course of the stop I form the opinion that the driver is drunk. Let's go one step further and say that, since my original hunch was about drugs in the vehicle, I am able to obtain a legal consent search from the driver, but I find no drugs. None of this invalidates the original reason for stopping the car, and the driver will still be arrested for Driving While Intoxicated.

Let's tie the analogy to the War on Terror. Afganistan is Car 1. Everyone agrees that we were most justified in going to Afganistan after 9/11, since the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is Car 3. We may have our own beliefs based on hunches about the Saudi government and their support for terror organizations, but we still cannot justify taking action.

Iraq is Car 2. For the sake of this argument, I will concede that there are no WMD's. ( I happen to believe that there were, and that they were sent somewhere else just prior to the invasion.) I will also concede that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. (Again, there are links, but I am not making that argument.) We were still justified in going in because of the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War. Saddam Hussain was not abiding by that agreement. We were very justified in going in. Even though what we found after invading was different from what we expected, we still have every right to be there. The original justification for the invasion was not made invalid.

A Disturbing Trend

I heard a story on the news today that bothered me. I have not heard all of the details yet, so perhaps I am a little premature in my comments. However, what I heard is believable, and the comments that I have so far are applicable elsewhere.

I was listening to the Rusty Humphries Show tonight. At one of the news breaks, there was a story about Federal legislation currently in the works regarding the regulation of over-the-counter medication and placing more restrictions on the sale of it. Now, the story did not give much detail, but did mention Methamphedamines. This led me to believe that the medication in question is Sudafed, and all of the genertic brands with the same ingrediant. If you did not know, Sudafed is used, along with other wonderful things that are great for your body such as lye and gasoline, to manufacture "Meth".

Now for my gut reaction......

How in the world will restricting the sale of Sudafed to law abiding people stop the manufacture of meth? People who make meth don't give a rat's behind about laws and will get the ingredients somewhere.

Does this argument sound familiar? It should. It is the same argument that I have against blanket gun control laws. Folks, it's not the decent people that we need to worry about, therefore we should not be putting restrictions on them. Let's spend more time and energy going after the crime, not trying broad based restrictions on otherwise legal activity, whether it be gun ownership or the need for cold relief.

The Second Amendment Strikes Again

If you have not heard the story of Susan Buxton, go here to listen to the 911 tape. Susan Buxton is a grandmother in Texas who successfully defended herself with a handgun. She is the official "Pistol Packin' Grandma" of the Sean Hannity Show. Here is the gist of her story:

1. Susan Buxton got up at 1 a.m. to let her dog out. She noticed a broken window, and some other thing amiss in her house.

2. Susan, who has a concealed carry permit for her 38 revolver, and is train to use it, started to search her house along with her grand daughter.

3. During the search, a bad guy running from the cops jumped out of her closet. Susan pointed her gun at the bad guy, and ordered him to the ground while the grand daughter called 911.

4. The bad guy made the mistake of trying to grab Susan's gun. She shot him in the leg (which happens to be where she aimed for).

5. The bad guy exited the house to the front lawn, where Susan tried to keep him from running while the cops were on their way.

6. When the bad guy started to run, Susan shot the ground next to him, knowing she did not have the right to actually shoot him again. It didn't work, and the coward was found two doors down cowering on a balcony.

Folks, the cheapest and most effective way to reduce crime is the increase of responsible gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Susan Buxton had her gun for 12 years, and never had to use it. She could have become complacent after a few years and not stayed proficient in the use of her weapon, but instead she practiced regularly. It paid off, and she lived to tell about it. Kudos to her.