Video: Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. Full Interview @Project_Veritas
Showing posts with label self defence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self defence. Show all posts
Friday, March 15, 2013
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Why a gun is civilization
Jack E. Kemp
Munchkin Wrangler asked to make this article go viral. I'll do my part here, as he has an excellent point. As Munchkin states, gun ownership is the true women's equality, making her equal with a 230 lb. gang-banger who wants to steal her car...or worse. It also makes senior citizens equal to thugs, etc. This is one argument that Gloria Steinem's fans almost never considered...and Sarah Palin thinks is almost too obvious to mention.
Without further adieu..
Why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Video: Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama May Grab for Guns
The treaty was signed by former President Clinton, but never approved by Congress. It has gained approval in 29 other countries. Obama put his weight behind it during his whirlwind tour abroad late last month.
Yesterday’s passage of legislation that revoked the longstanding ban on guns in national parks proved that this treaty would probably fall by the wayside once more, said Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America. But the fact that Obama voiced his support for it speaks volumes about the President’s view of the Second Amendment, after his famous claim to not “take away guns” from law-abiding Americans.
The treaty would “pretty clearly would require, without a whole lot of extrapolation, a regulation of all firearms in the United States,” said Pratt.
Called the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials,” the legislation’s bans are multitudinous:
The manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials: a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place: or c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacture.
These sweeping regulations could affect everything from BB guns to toy guns, and could even prevent the individual re-loading of guns by the owners themselves. It could potentially require matching insignia on bullets and shells, meaning that re-use of cases would be illegal – a practice that is more common during a recession.
The regulations could also affect gun clubs, by banning “association or conspiracy” with illegal gun activities. So if an NRA member commits an offense, clubs or advocacy groups could be liable.
The treaty could even call for action against the dealer who sold an offender a weapon. If Mexico calls for the extradition of a gun dealers, the U.S. would be obligated to resolve it by “other means of peaceful settlement” that are yet undefined.
In addition to a Presidential signature, sixty-eight out of 100 Senate members are needed in order for an international treaty to be approved in the United States. But the move to overturn the National Parks gun ban gained 67 signatures, meaning passing further gun restrictions is unlikely, said Provost.
“You have [Senators] who you’re just really surprised are voting pro-gun,” he said.
by Jillian Bandes
-------------
Senate Approves Coburn Gun Amendment…in Credit Card Bill
The Senate on Tuesday night easily passed an amendment to credit card reform legislation that would allow concealed weapons in national parks. The vote was 67 to 29.
The question now is this: Will a controversial gun proposal attached to popular underlying legislation be the poison pill that sinks that larger bill? That’s been the case with legislation allowing the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress, to which the Senate attached language scrapping many of Washington’s strict gun control laws. As a result of that gun amendment, the DC-vote bill remains stalled in the House months after it passed the upper chamber.
Now, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the chief sponsor of the credit card reform bill, is wondering whether the same might be the fate of his credit card proposal. “My concern is about what the underlying bill — what happens to it,” Dodd said on the chamber floor just before the vote. “I hate to see us lose this opportunity to make a difference with credit card reform.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who sponsored the concealed weapons bill, said he supports many of Dodd’s credit card provisions, and didn’t have in mind to offer his amendment just for the purpose of killing the larger bill. “I don’t want to see it fail on this,” Coburn said. “But nor do I want to see the Second Amendment trampled on.”
So much for an easy, clean, must-pass credit card reform bill.
By MIKE LILLIS 5/12/09 6:44 PM – The Washington Independent
------
Bill allowing loaded weapons in national parks sent to Obama
WASHINGTON -- Here's a list of stuff the typical American family can legally carry into national parks this summer: sleeping bag, toothbrush, change of underwear ... loaded guns.
Thanks to a 279-147 vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives, visitors to the nation's parks and wildlife refuges will be able to carry weapons there if they abide by state weapons laws.
The bill is on its way to President Barack Obama, who faces a dilemma: Gun rights advocates attached the provision to a sweeping overhaul of the credit card industry, an initiative Obama strongly supports, so he has little choice but to let the gun section become law.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only that Obama "looks forward" to signing the bill "as quickly as possible," and didn't mention the gun provision.
Gun control advocates howled Wednesday, but to little effect. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., protested that "the bill has been hijacked," and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., maintained, "American taxpayers ought to be incensed."
Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, predicted that the measure would provoke problems at the parks.
"Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."
Nonetheless, the gun measure, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly earlier this month, had strong bipartisan support. In the House, 105 Democrats, most from Southern, Western and rural states, joined 174 Republicans in backing the measure.
Two Republicans, Reps. Michael Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois, and 145 Democrats voted no.
"This is one of those issues that breaks down regionally," explained Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
President Ronald Reagan first required guns to be stored or inoperable in national parks 25 years ago, but last December, just before leaving office, the Bush administration overturned that rule.
That began a game of legal Ping-Pong. In March, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the Bush rule, and the Obama administration said it wouldn't appeal.
That action spurred Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to include the gun rule in the credit card bill. It wound up winning by an unexpectedly lopsided vote.
Coburn and his backers said that they didn't want, nor did they expect, people to be in danger of random shooters in national parks.
"It's really common sense," he said. "This is not about guns. What I want is gun rights. I want our constitutional rights to be protected."
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the measure was also a matter of self-defense.
"The real issue is that law-abiding Americans will no longer be treated as criminals" when they carry weapons, he said.
National Rifle Association officials argued that weapons are needed for protection in parks that are becoming increasingly dangerous. Asked why police couldn't handle criminal activity, Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's director of public affairs, said, "At that moment when you're confronted by a criminal, it's between you and the criminal. Law enforcement cannot be there in position at any time."
Gun control groups said a new kind of danger would be lurking once the ban was overturned.
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He added that Obama "should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."
Brady group spokesman David Vice suggested that Democrats were overreacting to gun rights advocates. Democrats still have bitter memories of losing congressional races in more conservative areas in the 1990s after being tagged as soft on guns.
Vice suggested that last year's results, in which Democrats won their biggest congressional majorities since the early 1990s, are evidence that those districts recognize the need for some limits on guns.
"We're trying to change that perception," he said, "but it's been difficult."
BY DAVID LIGHTMAN - MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
(McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Margaret Talev contributed to this report.)
Coburn who introduced this provision says it is more an issue of State’s Rights and Individual Freedom than a gun issue…
Related Articles and Resources:
- Australian Gun Law Update
- Columbine Remembered -- What a great speech!
- Obama Perpetuates The '90 Percent Of Mexico's Weapons Come From The U.S....
- Only About 10% of Weapons Used By Mexican Drug Cartels Come From America Says Former Drug Czar William Bennett
- Gun-Free Zones Are a Magnet for Attacks Like the Tragedy In Binghamton
- Preserve the Second Amendment
- National Rifle Association politics and legislation: http://www.nraila.org/
- Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycampaign.org/
- House roll call vote on gun measure: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll277.xml
- Michael Farris - United Nation’s Convention on Rights of a Child Material
- Parentalrights press conference
Posted: Daily Thought Pad
Friday, February 13, 2009
Preserve the Second Amendment
HumanEvents.com has Partnered with the NRA for this Special Offer:
Join the NRA with Full Membership Benefits for 1 Year for $25.
NRA Reduces Membership Price for Human Events Readers
Dear Human Events Reader,
The United States of America in 1791 was a new democracy, in a new land. That year 10 Amendments were added to our Constitution. Those Amendments are known today as the Bill of Rights. A formal statement that the people shall have unalienable freedoms and that congress shall make no laws against those freedoms.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
President Obama’s Chicago, House Speaker Pelosi’s San Francisco and Attorney General Holder’s Washington, D.C. are a reflection of what they think of the 2nd Amendment. That it is just fine to infringe upon, impede and restrict your right to keep and bear arms.
Are these the officials you trust to protect your Constitutional rights?
Are these the people that will protect our 2nd Amendment?
Who will protect our Constitutional freedom? We the people. Through our strength in numbers we can send a message to those that disregard our 2nd Amendment will not be tolerated.
This is an invitation from Human Events, to you, to join the National Rifle Association. Our Founding Fathers pledged their blood, their treasure and their sacred honor. We can honor that pledge today with our membership in the organization that has protected our 2nd Amendment freedom since 1871 – the NRA.
Join, renew your membership or give the gift of membership. This is the single most important thing you can do to protect the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Join Our Fight to Preserve the 2nd Amendment Today!
Thank You, 
Michael W. Piccione
Director, Special Products
Human Events
Monday, February 2, 2009
Australian Gun Law Update
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
I thought you all would like to see the now available data from Down Under...
It has now been one year (12 months) since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now available:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent);
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent as compared with the last one year period when private ownership of a firearm was legal.
(NB: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their guns.)
While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately owned guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are assured their victims will be unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.'
This story of well intentioned government intervention in the rights of lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the mainstream U.S. media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama who advocates a similar confiscation in the U.S. will not be reporting any of this to you.
But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
The right to bear arms is part of (our) the Constitution of the United States of America… part of the Bill of Rights… and it has been proven to us over and over that our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing!! They knew and experienced firsthand what happens when the laws, government and climate changes…
Americans may want to take note before it's too late!
FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.
DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.
BE A PARTICIPANT IN THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO DOESN'T WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN AUSTRALIA HAPPEN IN THE US!
(Also remember… Neutral Switzerland, probably most peaceful nation in the world, arms and trains all its citizens as a militia and everyone has guns and ammo at home in case they are called.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)