In the state of Nevada one can purchase as many firearms in one month as one can afford. In fact, I recently took ownership of four firearms in one day and as many as eight in one month.

In Nevada one doesn’t have to register one’s firearms (except in Clark County; we’re trying to change that).

In Nevada one can purchase black plastic semi-auto rifles. However, many of those rifles are tan or green now.

In Nevada one can purchase a firearm that contains more than ten rounds in the magazine. My semi-auto rifles utilize 20 and 30-round mags and one pistol uses a 20-round mag.

In Nevada one can own a machine gun, sub-machine gun and/or silencer. I own one for a Walther P22. I plan to buy a couple more and I am planning to legally build one of my own design for my .223 rifle.

In Nevada one can obtain a CCW and carry a concealed firearm whenever one decides to do so. I was once asked by a police officer if I always went armed. When I told him I did, he said: “Good man.” I then told him that I usually carry three guns. I am never unarmed and I don’t go places where I am not allowed to retain my firearm.

In Nevada I don’t have to wait 3 days or 10 days before I can take the firearm I purchased home.

Yes, in Nevada we do have to undergo a background check when I purchase a firearm but I can also purchase firearms from private parties without a background check. Yes, I must register them with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department but there are those of us in Nevada attempting to eliminate that requirement through the legislature.

In Nevada, unlike the Socialist People’s Republik of Kalifornia, I can still find lead wheel weights to cast bullets.

While there are a few aspects of Nevada’s gun laws that I would like to see changed, for the most part, those of us who live in Nevada are a bit freer to exercise or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

That being the case, in the year 2000 California averaged 621.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people compared to Nevada with 524.2; murders in California: 6.1 per 100,000, Nevada: 6.5; aggravated assaults in California: 408.7 per 100,000, Nevada 247.3.

Nevada’s crime rate is about the same or less than California.

California is a “may issue” state as to concealed carry permits but Nevada is a “shall issue” state.

California only allows one gun purchase per month; Nevada doesn’t have a limit on the number of guns that can be purchased.

California requires all firearms purchased to be registered, even guns purchased from private parties; In Nevada, only in Clark County is handgun registration required.

In California, some types of rifles have been banned; Nevada hasn’t banned any particular type of firearm.

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, while Nevada has what I would characterize as more common sense gun laws than California with a crime rate about the same as California. Therefore, my conclusion is that the Draconian gun laws in California have done nothing to reduce crime.

Further, as a result, I do not believe there is any such thing as “common sense” gun laws.

Restricting the number of guns a person can buy in one month or the type of gun a person can buy makes no sense at all.

Not allowing people the means of protecting oneself or one’s family makes no sense at all.

Additionally, “gun-free zones” have proven to be ineffective.

Law-abiding gun owners have been shown to be exactly that: law-abiding. Criminals, on the other hand have shown themselves to be a scourge on society.

What does make sense is for the courts to hand down more realistic sentences for career and violent criminals. Prosecutors should not be allowed to plea bargain cases out of court. Parole for violent criminals should be eliminated.

Some of us desire to see the return to the principles upon which the country was founding upon.

That doesn’t seem likely with the current presidential candidates. However, there is a possibility that one of those candidates has opened the door to the return to the country’s founding principles.

With John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as vice-president, we have an opportunity to return to the founding principles.

One could conclude that, due to his age, John McCain would be a one-term president leaving Sarah Palin in line for two terms.

While Sarah Palin may not be the absolute best qualified presidential candidate at this time, she could be the perfect candidate in four years.

Of the four people running for president and vice-president, Sarah Palin is obviously the most conservative of the group. Apparently, she believes the same things that at least half the country believes; that smaller government is better, less tax is better, personal freedom is better, individual accomplishments are better.

As a person who desires less government interference in my life, the freedom to own as many firearms as I chose to own for legitimate reasons (target shooting, collecting, hunting although I don’t hunt, self-defense and deterrent of government tyranny), the ability to choose which kind of light bulbs I use I would love to see a person in the White House who believes that I should be able to live my life as I see fit. Sarah Palin appears to be that person.

A vote for John McCain in 2008 is really a vote for Sarah Palin in 2012.