Of course, the diary and quote are fictional but no more fictional than the garbage one will find in “Arming America - The Origins of a National Gun Culture” by Michael Bellesiles if the review in The New York times by Garry Wills and the review of the review by Vin Suprynowisz are accurate.

You know, I bought my first firearm when I was 11 years old. I started hunting when I was 8 with a rifle I still have. It is a Maynard-Stevens breakdown single-shot 22 caliber. At the time, though, I had no idea I was being trained for and joining a (let me see how it was phrased) - Oh, yes - “right wing conspiracy” to develop a “gun cult”.

Anyway, had to check this out. I don’t give a crap about phrases such as “right wing, left wing” as I consider them - well - crap meant to create negative thoughts in people. But I do care about being accused of ‘conspiring’ and ‘being a cultist’ in the negative sense of the word. But, first, let us consider the (what a joke) ‘findings’ of the author.

Let’s see. Only 14 percent of the colonials were armed according to Bellesiles. This conclusion came from court records of estates (1000) being transferred in Pennsylvania and New England. Hm, does not every reader of these two recognize a fallacy with this as a means of determining the number of people who owned firearms? Think about it a minute.

In my life I have yet, with the exception of large collections, known any ordinary person (cultist in the minds of Bellesiles and Wills) who passed on firearms as part of estates. Most often the firearms were given to a relative far in advance of death, such as, “Here, Ed, you have always wanted this rifle - it is yours.” Or, if after death, “Here, Ed, you have always wanted this rifle - it is yours.”

Good God, where did Bellesiles and others get the idea that farmers and others passed on firearms as part of estates. The idea, even today, is to avoid estate transfers and I seriously doubt many back in the 18th and 19th centuries even thought about it.

Not only that, but until the government fraudulently stuck its grubby, greedy, estate-taking fingers into the average citizen’s accumulations, the majority (just as now) didn’t worry about estate settlements.

And the people back then certainly didn't register their firearms with any organization and probably would have shot anyone who tried to take them because of some stupid law.

What this guy actually found is that 14 percent of those who were in county records through estate settlements owned firearms. This alone invalidates the study since accuracy of projecting to the whole depends on random sampling of the ‘complete’ population, not just a few counties of a few states and limited to records in court houses.

Not only that, but as most are aware of, there were few courthouses or centralized record keeping west of the New England states and, as stated above, none in which firearms were registered.

Also, it was most probable 14 percent of the so-called ‘elite’ since small farms and such further west were simply taken over by family without probated transfers. Plus, again, this was the colonies when a person didn’t have to tell anyone what and how many firearms were owned (which is still unconstitutional).

Since families were extremely large, I must wonder if Bellesiles considered the ratio of adult/children. It is important. Based on checking estate records in courthouses, I presume the ratio wasn’t considered as in: “What percentage were children too small to use a black-powder rifle or, as yet, hadn’t bought their own or hadn’t been given their own?”

Perhaps it is “operationally defined” (a must in proper research methodology) in his book (I will never know since I do not like wasting my time with poor research and analysis) but, as we all know, the adult/children ration was not roughly half-and-half as now. But, let’s assume it was just for my point. If the ratio was 50-50, then 28 percent of adults owned firearms.

If it were closer to 75-25 (which I suspect in rural areas since manpower for farming was in part supplied through children), then 42 percent of all adults owned firearms.

In regards to settling the West, which includes west of the 13 colonies, I would wager that every adult male and most of the women, owned and carried firearms or had them loaded and readily available. It wasn’t a walk in the campus park. Settling the West was a journey into extreme danger which demanded self-protection.

There was also had the necessity of hunting for meat, since most did not take a herd of cattle with them (or pigs or chickens) and since there weren't many neighborhood grocery stores or a major chain every few miles or less. Hunting supplied it.

A bit of a transgression but even when I was young, my family depended on hunting for much of our meat fare as did the families of many of my friends. My dad, brothers, and I supplied squirrels, rabbits, ducks, geese, dove, and quail. (Back then, there wasn’t much of a deer population - estimated at two (yes - 2) in 1945 following the war. And by the 50’s and 60’s, there still weren't enough deer for me to waste my time when the fields and woods abounded with rabbits and squirrels.)

There were, of course, the marauders who act as now - taking what they want from those who have it. Then, there were the dangers from (a sad story of a people being treated as lower than animals) the American Indians.

Actually, I would wager that nearly every adult heading west of New York in the late 1700’s and 1800’s for rural, unsettled or less settled areas had a firearm available to them. I suppose some did not but they depended on those who did for their protection.

We will never know, though, since (contrary to stupid research projects such as that conducted by Bellesiles and others) there are not any records that are valid nor any means of obtaining accurate records short of a time machine, physically going to every residence, visually detecting, and counting firearms.

Did these people pass them on in ‘estates’? Or, teach them children the same right wing crap Bellesiles and Wills state (the conspiracy had to start someplace, did it not?). NO. It is a crock of you know what.

You see, there wasn’t any need to conspire since self-protection with a firearm was taken for granted as it has been through most of my life. In the days when our nation was young, I also suspect for many, if not most, a firearm was taken almost as necessary item when leaving the protection of a home. For some, it was essential apparel.

In regards to firearms being listed in estates, there was no registration. It was none of the government’s business and still isn’t according to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is becoming a threatening issue, an issue that would not be in existence if it weren’t for a nearly 100 percent tyrannical government and rather idiot-acting people who do not understand “unalienable rights of people”.

The reason the 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution was to support in writing the unalienable right of the individual to always be able to keep and bear arms against aggressors who would try to take away freedom and interfere with rights. Of paramount importance, the founders’ reasoning included the most probable offender to liberty, the newly established federal government.

Our founders were wise men in that they knew giving power to a few created a fertile field for corruption and tyranny. In this country corruption and inevitable tyranny flourished. Rather disheartening but publishers and editors seem to support the government’s position and use analyses such as that made by Bellesiles. And it apparently doesn't matter much as to the complete inaccuracies of such reporting.

By Bellesiles rather warped, nonsensical reasoning, people such as myself would have to have been the people carrying on the conspiracy and part of developing the ‘cult’ since many of us in my generation have been involved with firearms for seveal decades. In my case, I have been involved with firearms for the past 52 years. Let’s investigate this accusation.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000, we find conspiracy to mean: “1. An agreement to perform together an illegal,wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or act together, as if by sinister design:...”

Hmm, seems to me that those who exercise the right to keep and bear arms cannot possibly be involved in a ‘conspiracy’ since it is legal and certainly not a crime for law-abiding citizens, nor is any crime being discussed by any firearm advocating group made up of law-abiding citizens.

Actually, it appears the conspirators are those involved in removing the constitutional right (which is by the Supreme Law of the Land) of keeping and bearing arms.

If Bellesiles or Wills have talked to others (at least one other) concerning controls on firearms, they are conspirators and are involved in a national conspiracy.

Furthermore, the Million Mom March is a ‘CONSPIRACY’ as is every anti-gun group.

Summing it up - THESE READICALS AND RIGHT WING NUTS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY THIS NATION.

As for ‘cult’, according to the same dictionary as above, most definitions relate to religion. However, there is this: “5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.”

Well, it is clear I am a cultist and belong to a cult. And, I believe strongly enough that I volunteered to defend others belonging to the same cult. Guess I will be damned to hell by Bellesiles-like thinkers. Except --- it is not as people such as Bellesiles and Wills think.

It is not the firearm I am devoted to. It is the Constitution of the united States of America and its defense, a defense completely ignored by the federal government.

If I could buy a fleet of tanks, a years-long capability of sending barrage after barrage of missiles, fighter aircraft, all forms of battle ships, Lazer weaponry, and millions of hand-held firearms along with all forms of exploding devices, I would do so.

You see, I could better defend the people of the 50 States against aggressors who would steal our liberties by keeping and using such armaments (by the Constitution, I also have the right to own any of the above and as many of the above as I want. The only limit is money to purchase them with).

I do belong to a group most of us call ‘Americans’. And, as do all true Americans, I hold freedom and liberty above my own life which means I will defend the Constitution to my last breath. Because of this, I, by definition, then belong to a cult.

But, this is a positive cult I belong to, not a negative cult as poor thinkers such as Bellesiles and Wills would have you believe. Furthermore, it is quite likely the cult I belong to has a membership of at least 70 percent of the American people which makes my beliefs the norm. But, people such as Bellesiles and Wills try to get others to follow their (quote) thinking (unquote) by creating negative thoughts and negative concepts.

Those who think as Bellesiles and Wills, including most of those in the federal government, those in groups who advocate anti-gun legislation, are “cultists” in every negative sense of the word and they are involved in a conspiracy, the conspiracy to destroy liberty through their non-commitment to the most important document we have ever seen in regards to freedom and democracy. (No, we are not a democracy but so many peole relate ‘freedom’ to democracy that I must use the term as it is commonly used.)

We are a Republic with a document that supports for all time the right of the individuals of this nation to defend themselves with any arms necessary, whether it be against the criminal element or a nation attempting to take over this one. This includes those who would take away firearms and conspire to do so since they conspire against the highest law of the land, the Constitution, and, because of the design of this union of States, includes the US Government.

This is a right that may not be voted away since what is God-given is above the dictates of Man and it matters not what any or how many might say to the contrary. It may not be amended away regardless of statements to the contrary.

Unalienable rights are God-given, unalienable, and CANNOT be tampered with. Whether an amendment is ever ratified to the contrary of any unalienable right or not makes not a whit of difference to individuals. Man’s laws may NOT take away that which is God-given.

In conclusion, those who act or speak against the 2nd Amendment are actually traitors to this union of States. They have the desire to destroy the Constitution and individual liberty. They wish to take quite possibly the most important right we have since it provides the defense all other rights. They are the enemy and are conspiring to destroy the union. They are CULTIST CONSPIRATORS.

God gave us the right to defend ourselves by any means. (Or, is the Bible also wrong?) Our forefathers assured us of constitutional support for this right. It is up to us who know the conspiracy against the 2nd Amendment exists by taking actions legally forcing Congress to repeal all unconstitutional laws. “Right wing radicals” and “slimy cultists” such as Bellesiles and Wills must be forever silenced by treating them as the traitors they are.

PS - I have stated it before - I will state it again.

In all my years of having loaded firearms in my home, not one of the firearms has managed to run out the door and shoot someone.

Get it, dips?