Tag Archives: self-defense

Only the Police and Military Need Boxing

30 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Only the Police and Military Need Boxing

Tags

, , , ,

Virginia floats a bill to essentially outlaw self-defense.

The State of Virginia, now entirely run by truly insane Democrats who support infanticide and child murder, is proposing a new 2020 law known as SB64 (see link here) which will be taken up by the Democrat-run Senate beginning January 8, 2020.

The law would instantly transform all martial arts instructors into criminal felons. This includes instructors who teach kickboxing, BJJ, Krav Maga, boxing and even Capoeira.

It would also criminalize all firearms training classes, including concealed carry classes.

It would even criminalize a father teaching his own son how to use a hunting rifle.

Specifically, the law says that a person “is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity” (a class 5 felony) if that person:

“Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons…”

The phrase “technique capable of causing injury or death to persons” covers all forms of martial arts and self-defense training, including Krav Maga, BJJ, boxing and other contact martial arts such as Tae Kwon Do or Tai Chi.

Under the proposed law, all forms of self-defense training — including hand-to-hand martial arts training — would be considered “paramilitary activity,” even if the training consists of private classes involving just one instructor and one student. That’s because every form of martial arts training imparts skills which could be used to cause injury to other persons.

In fact, according to the language of the law, just “one” person learning such arts is a felony crime, which means that watching a DVD on Krav Maga would be a felony crime.

It stands no chance of passing or being enforced. But, it’s the thought that counts – from a place that recently legalized infanticide. Next, being human will become a capital felony. I’d say “enjoy the blue state,” but cuckservatives will be along shortly, supporting the same within five years.

PS: whatever your training, keep it QUIET.

Ivan Throne, The Dark Triad Man, on Self Defense Training

22 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Ivan Throne, The Dark Triad Man, on Self Defense Training

Tags

, ,

Ivan, an expert’s expert, gives excellent pointers:

Practical dojo selection reminders for the common man.

Once the correct nature of the Way is understood, the inherent profit of strength and fitness are valued, and the foundations of sacred purpose and meaning are entrenched – how does one select a dojo or choose a martial tradition to study and absorb, practice and perhaps ultimately master?

This is often something that those who are young in experience needlessly obsess over.

Should you select a Japanese, Chinese or Korean tradition? Is hard or soft kung fu better? Is one ryū -ha more officially authentic? Which teacher is the “real” teacher of any particular method?

Return to the basics. Recall your purpose, remember what you face in the dark world.

You do not face arts or traditions.

You face men.

Thus it is men you must train to accommodate or overthrow, to avoid or smash, as dictated by the circumstances and environment and in accordance with your purpose.

So much of the training does and does not really matter. Much of what is offered out there, today, is utterly useless. Still, even with the good stuff, one has to find the right balance and what meets individual expectations.

ivan-2

darktriadman.com

Read any account from any crime or terror attack – like that in London earlier today – the survivors (almost to a man or woman) will explain they had no idea what to do. That’s the majority herd way. Break away from it as fast as possible. Ivan has some great suggestions.

Obama’s Last Push For Gun Control

18 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Obama’s Last Push For Gun Control

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Let’s hope it’s the last. And it’s probably bound to fail anyway. Still, even as he departed for Hawaii, Obama started his push to ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty through the Senate.

We weren’t going to cover this because, frankly, it seemed like just a desperate last salvo from a failed, departing President. But in the days since it was announced, there have been uncomfortable rumblings about some GOP Members of Congress caving in…

President Obama just formally delivered the UN Arms Trade Treaty to the United States Senate for ratification and he is demanding that Congress approve it.

As you know, the UN Arms Trade Treaty would implement global firearm import/export restrictions and force member states to create gun owner registries.

This has always been the goal of the modern gun control movement in America. Final gun control – disarmament – cannot happen without a detailed registry of who owns which firearms.

The gun control advocates are now just one Senate vote away from realizing this disarmament dream…

The White House is already trying to spin this. They are calling it “common sense” gun control. They are begging that a handful of Liberal Republicans break with their party and vote to create a nationwide gun registry.

In the Western World, there has never been a gun registry that wasn’t followed by confiscations.

Registration, confiscation, then you’re down to beating off attackers with your shoe. But they want to make even that a criminal act. Like in France.

gunconfiscation2

These murder numbers are a tad low. News Pipeline.

Tomorrow is the real U.S. Presidential election, by the way.

The Guns of Obama

29 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Guns of Obama

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A song:

Now they’re tryin to take my guns away;
And that would be just fine.
If you take em away from the criminals first,
I’ll gladly give ya mine.

Charlie Daniels, A Few More Rednecks, 1989

An analogy:

A house is burning down. The occupants are concerned for their safety, their lives. Their leader, the owner of the house, is oblivious to the conflagration. Suddenly, as the flames reach new heights of intensity, he stops and decries a picture which hangs crooked upon the wall. He doesn’t fix it. He just lectures the terrified people about the picture – while the house burns. This story can’t end well.

As for Daniels’s lyrics, even if government were included among the criminals, I would still require serious consideration before going along with his premise. However, his melodious intent is clear. First things first. Deal with the problems – the trouble-makers – before bothering the civil and the decent.

The analogized burning house is America. She is besieged by a host of problems – abortion, terrorism, debt, government tyranny – which may well reduce her to smouldering ruins. The fool fixated on the small issue while ignoring the rest is dear leader Obama.

In his twisted thinking, because the economy has not already collapsed, there is no trouble brewing. Just because angry primitives haven’t killed every American yet doesn’t mean we could not do without a few more, or many more, of them amongst us. No thought needs be given to a million babies brutally murdered every year by a government-funded industry of blood.

The problem he sees, his crooked picture on the wall, is us. We, the people, and our arms are his concern. The fact of the purely anecdotal nature of the crookedness is no deterrent. An isolated incident here and there is all the evidence the lackadaisical dictator needs.

In Colorado a deranged, bearded, babbling wild man killed three people at a Planned Parenthood killing clinic. No estimate is provided as to how many unborn (and perhaps birthed) children have met a grizzly fate there. No mention of the failed mental health system and its relationship (or lack thereof) with demented, cabin-dwelling nut jobs. ISIS? Who’s that? The problem Obama sees is guns, guns in our hands. All of us. Even that majority of us who do not drift the countryside shooting as we mutter. Especially us, for the armed and the sane are a constant threat to the trivially obsessed and the criminally governing.

After the shooting Obama declared, “enough is enough.”

Reacting to the shooting, Obama made an impassioned call for tighter controls on military-style weapons.

“This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal,” a frustrated Obama said.

“If we truly care about this … then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them.”

He and I would be in agreement if by “people who have no business” he meant the mentally ill and the potentially dangerous. He doesn’t. He means me … and you. Agree we do not.

Cartoon-Gun-Control-for-Dummies-600

Google.

The killing in Colorado was terrible. All of it, not just the loss of lives and the injuries. That the shooter’s illness went untreated amidst the world of modern medicine and resources was terrible. That a place of such evil exists to give him demented focus is terrible. The President’s political exploitation is terrible.

A million dead babies a year is not hyperbole; it is a tragic fact. More tragic is that most abortions are committed for sake of convenience. All the while, a million American families wish they had a baby to adopt.

Obama and his party enjoy a cozy relationship with the industry. The loyal opposition, the gutless Republicans, do nothing. The people largely live on unconcerned.

In such circumstances it is often the crazy who alone will act. Being crazy their attempts usually miss the mark, they are self-defeating. Miguel de Cervantes’s titular Don Quixote was a madman, albeit heroic. His understanding of his wooden monsters was askew but, nevertheless, he attacked with righteous zeal. His loyal Sancho looked on. Few others took any notice of his quest or any reason (real or fanciful) behind it. So it is in America.

All the West is under invasion by jihadis. Their crimes Obama glosses over. He tells us it is only American to give them aid and comfort, to bring them home. Suicide has never been a lauded American trait.

Ever a politician and a contradiction Obama tells us, on the one hand, we must suffer more and more unvetted “refugees.” Just because. Self-presevation against their terrorist elements does not stem the flow. However, when a lunatic invades Obama’s sanctuary, jumps the Whitehouse fence, Obama permits his legion of guards and attack dogs to protect him. Live as he says, not as he lives.

For the liberal left the root of any problem is our guns. Crime, our guns. Terrorism, our guns. Our guns, our guns. The useless “conservatives” only maintain nominal opposition as it provides them an excuse to hold power. Otherwise, as with most things, they really don’t care.

Don-Quixote-Windmill

Google.

The good news for the free is the fact of the guns themselves. Of old rifles and shotguns were the province of white men in the country. Now everyone is armed. Blacks, whites, women, men, city folks, bumpkins – everyone sees the value of prepared defense. For all the clamour of the hand-wringing left, even the law has settled behind the people. And, there are just too many of us now. They, unless they would risk a real war, have lost this one. For now, at least, we have beaten this windbag’s windmill.

A Dichotomy Of Arms

18 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A man in Wyoming was out riding his bicycle. According to him he was attacked by a vicious German Shepherd (Belgian Malinois). Fearing for his life he shot the dog to death with his trusty revolver. It’s a story you may have missed. It only made the news because the dog in question was a former military service dog, a Bronze Star recipient, no less. I find the story interesting because it sheds light on a schism amongst the American people.

Mike was a nine year old dog who previously served two combat tours in Iraq. Upon his retirement Mike was adopted by Matthew Bessler, a retired Army Ranger. Both veterans suffered from PTSD; they provided each other with beneficial companionship.

Bessler went hunting. He left Mike in the care of a friend. Mike wandered off and encountered the cyclist – with deadly results. There, the news story ends.

The cyclist was not charged, his use of deadly force deemed by police to be justifiable self-defense. A GoFundMe page has been set up in order to provide Mike with a military burial.

A sub-controversey surrounds the fact the lethal shot hit Mike in the rear or back. I discount this factor. Attacking dogs move very fast. Shooting scenarios move fast too. A shot in the back does not, by itself, disqualify self-defense, especially concerning an animal. The old, false adage that retreat is better if possible is dangerous when one crosses a predatory animal. Withdrawal might trigger a chase or hunt instinct which could be worse than the initial confrontation. Like everyone else, I was not present and I can only go by the shooter’s account, tempered by reasoned thinking.

On the surface I find this story sad all the way around. I regret Mike’s death. I regret the cyclist felt his life was endangered to the point of resorting to shooting. I’m sorry Mike and Bessler suffered PTSD. I’m sorry their conditions were the results of the government’s inexplicable and indefensible war in Iraq. It’s terrible some think we need that government.

2D7F373900000578-3277028-image-m-6_1445086822138

Mike, another victim of the State. Daily Mail, UK.

Based on the bare facts reported by the (British) press, I support the cyclist’s account of the incident and his use of force. I can see a dog with PTSD (even if usually docile) becoming aggressive around a stranger. It happens.

I also hold Mike blameless. Even a vicious, dangerous animal is still just that, an animal. Mike was utterly blameless, too, regarding his military service and resulting illness. A human soldier with a conscious can object to illegal wars of aggression. A dog can’t.

Any blame here rests with the friend who was supposed to watch Mike. Large dogs should be leashed or fenced. Maybe there is no one to blame. Mike could have escaped a reasonable containment. Dogs do things like that. Maybe this was just a bad thing that happened – like a tornado or a freak accident.

At any rate, all of this is merely supporting background for my story. I noticed themes in the comments which accompanied the news which, upon further consideration, formed my titular dichotomy.

There were hundreds of comments which roughly divided into two camps. The first was supportive of the cyclist. They found the shooting justified. Most of these also held a pro Second Amendment bias. The other group was mortally offended at the death of a military hero, albeit a dog.

The former group fully supported the individual right of self preservation even if they found Mike’s death lamentable as I do. The latter hold the shooting of a military veteran indefensible under any circumstance.

There were a few other reactions. Some found the existence of the subject firearm the problem. I suppose some might hate bicycles or hate dogs. These opinions are outliers and safely factor out of my analysis.

Some pro-shooter comments:

Should have been on a leash.

…

Too bad for the dog but most communities have leash laws for a reason…and yes, many joggers and bicyclists are bitten by uncontrolled dogs, that’s why pepper spray is a good idea.

…

“Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said: ‘Essentially, if you feel your life is in danger or threatened by an animal, you can act against it.’ Exactly

Pro military, no matter what:

Sounds like another Democrat got there hand’s on a gun !!

…

this cyclist had no business killing this dog. Charges should be brought against him immediately.

…

I would not blame or feel bad at all and I would even back the dog owner if he wanted to take fatal retaliation against the cyclist. It is just. What the hell is wrong with people that want to kill a dog like that…This soldier has one more mission to accomplish! …huh rah!

…

I hope the shooter gets hit by a car and suffers a long painful death

These views show a division between otherwise aligned interests. Most of the folks are likely “conservative” by political philosophy, perhaps a few libertarian. “Liberals” would abhor the gun itself.

I see this as a difference of opinion between “red staters.” I suspect the majority of both sides generally support the carrying of individual arms. Both likely support justifiable self-defense. Here’s the division: the first group seems to support self-defense regardless of the aggressors status. They find a man free to act when illegally threatened. Period. I’ll call these the people “freedom lovers.” The others support self-defense unless the aggressor is a member of the hallowed legions of the state. I’ll call them “government lovers.”

The government lovers are more extreme. Not only do they want the cyclist prosecuted, they want him dead – by a “long painful death” – for a situation they did not witness. But, to them, the facts do not matter. They are more worshipers than mere lovers of the state. The government and its uniformed agents (even dog agents) must not be challenged – ever.

The worship of the state may be increasingly seen in American churches, particularly Evangelical protestant churches. Government has seemingly replaced God for many. Much of this stems from an overzealous but false interpretation of Romans 13. Paul was only speaking to legitimate state authority – authority not acting against God’s Natural Law.

The Nazis, acting under Hitler’s “legal” orders, carried out the murder of dissidents and other war crimes. Were these too God-sanctioned acts of official authority? I think not.

The statists see it otherwise – at least concerning the American government.

If American soldiers kill innocents overseas, regardless of conditions, it’s acceptable collateral damage. If the police shoot a dog it’s okay, even if the police are breaking their own laws during the shooting. The same standard applies to police shootings of innocent civilians. No matter the cause, no matter the circumstance, the government is never at fault.

In the odd event the government is at odds with one of its servants the lovers will throw the individual under the bus without thought or hesitation. The false god of the almighty state suffers NO challenge.

This highlights both a disdain for individuality and a lack of logic among the parishioners of official authority.

For those of us who value freedom over safety this dichotomy and this particular example illustrates both a dire problem and a hazardous solution for liberty. It reminds me, for some reason, of the Melian Dialogue (with a twist).

A bit of archaic history: In 416 B.C. Athens was perhaps the most powerful military force in the known ancient world. The Athenians sought to subjugate the small, peaceful island state of Melos. The Athenian navy arrived at Melos. The dialogue went something like this:

Athens: “Surrender and join us.”

Melos: “No.”

The Athenians then proceeded to exterminate the Melians and seize their island.

download

Ruins of Melos. Google.

Many in the freedom camp rightfully seek to resist the evil of the modern state. However, as to outright martial confrontation, they see no hope. Maybe they are right. The American military and police state is almost powerful beyond measure. Outright rebellion would be almost impossible.

It may though be possible to indirectly oppose state oppression. An individual might be able to resist a single agent of the state and legally get away with it. Such resistance is still fraught with gravest danger. After such an incident the individual will be faced with resentment and hatred of the government’s unthinking masses. Hatred to the point of murder in revenge.

A safer if slower strategy might be to seek out those of the opposing camp and convert them to the truth of freedom. If they can think and reason this may be possible. They can be armed without an army. They can be safe and secure absent official structure. They can act as individuals. They can regard God as God and alone the Supreme source of authority.

All of this is open for consideration. What say you?

 

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“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.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

“The Right of the Children to Keep and Bear Canned Corn Shall not be Infringed.”

21 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“A well regulated pantry, being necessary to the security of a free school, the right of the children to keep and bear canned corn shall not be infringed.”  I write a good bit about the Second Amendment.  Now I have re-written the text entirely.  It’s now compatible with the 21st Century.  For the children and all.

An Alabama middle school (junior high) principal wants to arm students with canned food goods so as to deter terrorism.  I’m not making this up:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/14/schools-plan-to-empower-students-in-intruder-scenario-slammed-as-dangerous-stupid-wow/.

Starting immediately intruders or other “would-be evildoer(s)” will be pelted with canned corn and beans.

Image source: WHNT-TV

(Blaze article image.)

The school admits this plan may seem odd – “We realize this may seem odd…”  “Principal Priscella Holley and assistant principal Donna Bell added in the letter that ‘the canned food item would give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves.'”  Blaze article, supra.

The school apparently has a program called ALICE – Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter and Evacuate.  It’s like sheltering in place with can goods.  An added benefit is that during a prolonged lockdown these canned weapons could also, theoretically, serve as food. As the old Woody Guthrie song goes – “You can get anything you want at Alice’s restaurant (excepting education)….”

Some ultra-liberal types have already come out against the plan: “‘WOW. The level of stupidity in this is astronomically high,’ one individual wrote.” Blaze.  “’This is probably the most dangerous and stupid thing I’ve ever heard an educator say,’ wrote another individual.” Id.

In all seriousness, school shooting and violence are serious topics.  Self-defense is serious business too.  In a way, this might be a step in the right direction.  Any person held helpless and hostage by criminals has a God-given right to deter violence and injury (even in a school).  My question is this: wouldn’t a few handguns in the right, trained hands serve as a more effective deterrent?  You don’t see many cops armed with food.

1001029_024000163022_A_400[1][1]

=

Glock_22

???????

Other important policy issues are raised by this proposal.  Will there be a size limit on these cans?  A No. 10 can, being much heavier and potentially more damaging, might be considered a weapon of mass destruction.  If the cans are intentionally predetermined to be weapons, would they not run afoul of the school’s anti-weapons/anti-defense policy?  Kids these days are arrested for simply drawing pictures of weapons or merely saying words like “gun.”  Would a canned corn armed student or teacher be subject to arrest or discipline?

The Brady folks might lobby for a waiting period for the purchase canned food hereafter.  What about lid-locks.  Would a concealed can permit be in order?  Some more sensible people might rightly argue that only the police or the military need canned goods. The Founders never imagined food used as a weapon.  Would a box containing ten or twelve cans be considered a “high-capacity” food?

These and other ideas need to be explored.  Please, no canned responses here.

 

More Ancient Legal Doctrines of Self-Defense/Preservation

26 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is the second installment in my new series about the Second Amendment, militias, government, and the natural right of self/defense.  After a few more segments I’ll get to the American experience.  This column is concerned with more ancient sources. Read on.

My last segment concerned the Natural Law and the provisions therein allowing for armed resistance of force and tyranny.  For those not acquainted with Natural Law (American attorneys, etc.), it is the universal law instituted by God for the management of human societies.  God’s first draft was extraordinarily simple, as He supposed that people would be capable of easily governing themselves in paradise.  The law was codified as: “Don’t eat that fruit.”  Unfortunately, the first humans were as dense as their descendants today.  They ate the fruit and thus complicated our lives forever. 

God later attempted to set out ten simple laws He expected us to obey.  True to our fallen, fallible, self-determining ways, we messed those up too.  After constantly displaying an inability to adhere to the simple, the ancient Hebrews began to demand of God a “modern” system of government for themselves.  They seemed jealous of surrounding Peoples who had, among other things, kings.  God, in His omnipotence, offered that they Hebrews didn’t really need or want a king.  They begged to differ, instituted a king, and began to suffer immediately.

After the failure of the kings, and the subjugation of the people by more powerful earthly empires, God sent His Son in yet another attempt to clarify His law.  Jesus, simultaneously ratifying the existing law and providing an alternative route to salvation, issued another simple commandment.  We have not been too quick to pick on that one either.  Thus, it appears that people are stuck with their worldly trappings and their constant inability to deal honestly ad logically therewith until the Second Coming.  Thus, in our present state, and if we are even capable, we must attempt to relate our world to the eternal principles of the Lord.  That is Natural Law.  Having ignored and broken the concrete mandates given us, we are left to guess at how such Law applies to our civilizations.  Unlike the laws of science, math, and physics, which are difficult but possible to extrapolate and apply, the Laws of society are much less definable.  This grasping process has been the work of scholars and theologians for millennia. 

The Law as applied to self-preservation has been called the first law of nature.  This makes sense as, without resorting to keeping ourselves from harm, most of the other “laws” we can divine seem to matter little. 

Previously, I examined several Bible verses which supported the right of self-defense and preservation.  I also cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the duty (not only the right) to defend oneself and those in one’s charge.  This doctrine has existed for thousands of years.  We are commanded: “Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.”  Psalm 82:4. 

King David, definitely not a pacifist, praised God, saying, “Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.”  Psalms 144:1.  First Samuel 25:13 described an Israelite muster: “And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword.  And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword.”  The Israelites were a militia, not a standing army, note that David and every man was equipped with his sword, not a government issue model.  Men were expected to report for duty already armed with their own weapons.  That means they had to keep and bear those weapons in order to fulfill their duties to their society.  This was also the early American situation, as it should be today.

These weapons were and are necessary to preserve freedom in society.  Any sane man will pray that he never need use any measure of force in defense however, he should be ready to do so if necessary.  The fifth or sixth Commandment (depending on how counted) clearly sets forth God’s intention to preserve life:  “Thous shalt not kill.”  It is also translated, “Thou shalt not murder.”  Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17. 

The second translation is a prohibition on illicit killing, the first is a total ban.  In a perfect world it would be natural to follow a total ban on killing others made in God’s image.  However, as noted above, we have removed ourselves from perfection, be it temporarily.  Thus, given where we are, while we should strive for perfection, we may be limited to keeping from unlawful killings. 

In Leviticus, it appears that everything carries the death penalty.  Many of these provisions have actually been codified into civil law over the ages.  I’m not sure if anyone was ever executed for eating a shrimp.  However, Leviticus gave us the basis for many capital crimes still such today.  Accordingly, killers (murderers) may be executed in contravention of the Lord’s prohibition on killing.  Leviticus 24:16-17.  Numbers and Deuteronomy give further qualification as to which killings are crimes versus accidents. 

Coupled with those passages I cited last time, these dictates seem to logically indicate that force, including lethal force, may be used to repel unjust criminal activities.  The attendant duty upon us is to use the least force necessary to accomplish our defense.

Jesus exercised the ultimate restraint, in this regard, while enduring His treatment at the hands of His native detractors and Pilate.  Jesus made clear His purpose: “I came into the world…to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.”  John 18:38.  Demonstrating an eternal human misunderstanding, Pilate replied “What is truth?”  His purpose was not to overthrow earthly tyranny, but to provide an eternal alternative.  Rather than being an act of non-self-defense, Christ’s actions were the ultimate act of defense of others.  This truth may have been lost on one Roman, it was not on all Romans.

American law has been greatly influenced by our colonial past and our origins under the English Constitutional and common law.  In turn, English law was dependant on ancient Rome for many of its sources.  It must be remembered that the Kingdom of Britain once co-existed with the Eastern Roman Empire.  Thus, the legal traditions passed to the Isle of Britannia were those of earlier Roman glory – from the Republic and the earlier Western Empire.  From the founding of Rome until the time of Cicero, Roman laws were largely unwritten, even the Constitution.  Codification cam much later, under Justinian.  The Codex Justianius was issued in 529 A.D., five decades after the fall of the West.  The Digesta of ancient law was written soon thereafter.  Thus, began our tradition of dual sources of law – statutes and case-law. 

justinian_venice_rgzm

(Justinian.  Google.)

I previously cited to the Codex for its express allowance of the use of armed force to deter attack, by private parties and government agents.  This dual provision is tremendous as it presupposed that no-one is above the law and that even government force may be repelled when illegitimate.  Increasingly in America, the government takes the opposite position – that it is infallible and may not be resisted, even when tyrannical.  This is nonsense and may be disregarded as such.

In the next installment I will delve into the English tradition regarding arms and defense.  This tradition slowly coalesced into the modern theory of the militia being comprised of armed individual men.  Here, I will briefly note some of the long-standing traditions concerning arms in the British Isles before the rise of the common law and the Magna Carta.

“England” has been populated by various peoples probably for about 10,000 years.  The earliest peoples there were organized along the lines of families and tribes, each with its own society and rules.  It is obvious that most of these people were armed as they were constantly at war with one another and with the occasional outsider.  It is clear as mud as to what extent they retained formal doctrines regarding rights, arms, militia duties, etc.  “Self” defense often involved the entire tribe and was given to degenerating into all out war.  We could assign the Lex Talionis “the law of revenge” or the “law of the jungle” as the chief governing principle of these early Britons. 

As the centuries B.C. counted down, civilization and order began to grow in the Isles.  Legend has it that King Arthur was able to unite most of the peoples of lower England under his banner.  Whether he pulled a sword out of a stone is another matter but it seems that by his time (7th Century B.C.) swords were common among the people, both for use defensively and for militia service. 

Thus, when the Romans arrived in 43 B.C., they found a fierce and well armed people, not at all amenable to taming.  Four centuries of Roman occupation saw many changes in English life, including the ordering of the militias more along the lines of precise Legionary lines.  This, civil and engineering upgrades, and Christianity generally served to the benefit of the people, then and following the Roman’s departure.

Following the Romans, came the Angles, the Saxons, and eventually the Normans, each of whom introduced new character to England.  By at least the Twelfth Century England had evolved into a nation-state, not entire undistinguishable from its present form.  Then, standing armies were rare and the kings relied upon their subjects to form militias during times of needs.  Accordingly, free-men were expected, even ordered to keep arms for their and the common defense.  Assize of Arms, Henry II (1181).

King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215 which, in Section 61, provided for armed rebellion of sorts (lead by the nobility) in the event the Crown became tyrannical.  This process, of course, necessitated the continued institution of armed citizens.

magna carta

(Magna Carta Memorial, Runnymede, England.  Google.)

Next time, I will move forward in history and begin covering more modern English sources concerning the people, their rights, especially concerning arms and defense.  This will serve as a prelude to the customs of those English persons who colonized America, carrying the ancient traditions with them.

Natural Origins of Self-Defense

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is the first in a new series, an expansion of my both my Natural Law column and Second Amendment and related columns.  Here, I briefly examine the ancient and eternal theories behind the basic rights which gave rise to the doctrine enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Legal practitioners and law and political science scholars, along with the general public, many politicians, and the media, often make the common mistake of looking only to the text of the Constitution (State or federal) or recent court cases in order to gain perspective into the meaning and/or application of the Second Amendment (and related State protections).  While government protection of our rights is vital (the only reason for government), rights do not come from government.

My examination here is theoretic in nature and, thus, seeks out existential sources which provide both definition and supporting argumentative and empirical evidence which are fixed throughout history and across all geographic areas.  Of course, as my ultimate view is towards the American experience, I will pay closer attention to sources from Western civilization.

The Bible is replete with approval of self-defense.  “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  1 Timothy 5:8.  This would seem to encompass the responsibility to keep one’s family safe to the extent possible.  “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”  Exodus 22:2-3.  This provision is the basis for the common-law doctrine against burglary, originally extended to night-time attacks.  The matter of daylight adds an interesting perspective.  Again, this passage addresses a thief, not a would-be murderer of rapist.  It is divine commentary on the value of human life over mere possessions when an opportunity exists to examine the intent of a criminal.  While it is not a prohibition against using force to deter a thief, the provision indicates the Lord’s wish that force not exceed the attendant circumstantial need.

Paul continues this theme of limited aggression in Romans 12:19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'”  Again, God does not seem opposed to immediate use of force to deter violence but, once danger has passed, he commands that we leave judgment to him.  This is backed by the Old Testament: “Do not say, ‘I will repay evil’; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.”  Proverbs 20:22.  Again, for Christians, after the fact of a crime, the matter is God’s to handle.  This is the basis for a general prohibition against vigilante justice.

In Romans 13, often mis-cited as a justification for any and all government action being divine, Paul extolls the virtues of political agencies instituted in God’s Name.  When such an entity exists, then it has God’s authority to pursue prosecution of criminal matters.  I refuse to accept that this concept applies to all governments – I doubt God approved of Hitler’s action, for instance.  Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, has extensively commented on this subject – http://www.romans13truth.com/.

Jesus Christ, himself, tacitly endorsed armed defense: “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”  Luke 22:36.  I say “tacitly” because of the caveats Jesus placed on the use of force, essentially limiting it to only urgent circumstances.  Christ urged us to “turn the other cheek” when possible.  Matthew 5:39.  He also admonished Peter to sheath his sword while repairing the injure Peter had inflicted with his sword.  John 18:11.  Jesus, while defending the 10 Commandments, issued an 11th: “love one another.”  John 13:34.  The Son’s words places strict constraints on the Father’s allowance of the use of force.  It does not foreclose the concept.

JESUS-620_1587358a

(The ultimate Defender.  Google.)

Jesus only once resorted to the use of force, personally.  When He discovered the money-changers (the banksters of their time) abusing the Holiness of the Temple, Jesus violently drove them away.  John 2:15.  This underscores the possibility of defense as an immediate solution, without resort to formal authority or the eventual actions of the Lord.  The Church has formally detailed both the right to such defense as well as the moral duty of such action in need.  “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”  Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”): 2265 (emphasis added)(see also CCC: 1909).

The Church also commands dignity be afforded to the human body, generally: “This dignity entails the demand that he should treat with respect his own body, but also the body of every other person, especially the suffering”  CCC: 1004.  While this backs the general prohibition against unlawfully harming others, it also reminds the Believer to respect even his enemy and attempt to limit his forcible response to criminal activity as far as possible to minimize harm.

“… [I]n the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self.”  Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangeliun Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 1995.

The eminent scholar, David Kopel, has documented the general agreement among Eastern Religions along these ideas.  In his review of Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, Kopel explodes common myths that these religions do not allow for proper use of self-defense.  David B. Kopel. “Self-Defense in Asian Religions” Liberty Law Review 2 (2007): 79, 80-81 (http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/20).

Kopel’s expose is excellent.  He also touches on the Eastern version of Baldwin’s critique of Romans 13: “Although Confucianism, like most other religions, has been used by tyrants to claim that revolution is immoral, Confucius himself ordered a revolution against an oppressive regime.”  Id, at 163.  Only the “religion” of the State would decree that the government is above the Natural Law.

Commenting on Exudus 2, above, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kills another in defense of his own life.”  Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

“If a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.”  Id.

Plato noted that when one acts in true self-defense, taken as a natural right, one may actually do the criminal perpetrator (in addition to the victim and society) a service: if the criminal survives, he may reflect on his wrongdoing positively.  Plato, The Republic, The Problem of Justice.  Plato’s great student, Aristotle, agreed.  Aristotle noted that a true case of self-defense is not necessarily a voluntary action.  Thus, any suffering from the act of defense may be attributed to the aggressor and not the defender.  Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

The possession of weapons and their defensive usage, though regulated, was allowed in both the Roman Republic and the Empire. “We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a solider … to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all [up to, and including, death, if warranted].”  Codex Justinianus 3.27.1.  The Romans regarded the right to use weaponry in defense as implicit to the right itself.

The mighty Cicero opined: “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” Cicero, “In Defence of Titus Annus Milo,” Selected Speeches of Cicero, Michael Grant translation, 1969.  Again, the esteemed David Kopel gives excellent analysis to this ancient Natural Law position in The Sword and the Tome, America’s 1st Freedom, NRA, 2009.

Cicero’s titanic predecessor, the black-robed Cato, made an interesting analogy along the lines of Jesus’s act of retribution noted above (as noted by Cicero himself): Cato was asked by an ambitious Roman, “What is the most profitable about property?”  Cato answered, “To raise cattle with great success.”   The young man then asked, “What is the second most profitable?”  Cato answered, “Raising cattle with moderate success.”  The inquirer pressed again, “The third most profitable?”  “Raising cattle with little success.”  Finally, the young man cut to his presupposed profession, “How about money-lending?”  Cato answered (somewhat in advance of Jesus), “How about murder?”  Cicero, On Duties.

I by no means equate money-lending or banking with murder but it appears the subject was considered by multiple ancient sources.  It seems the evil of the banksters in as eternal as natural law.  Defense against the predation of this wicked class may be something to consider.

Later political theorists expounded the virtue and necessity of self-defense.  John Locke described self-defense as the first among Natural Rights.  Locke, Second Essay on Civil Government.  Hobbes concurred in this assertion, regardless of the state of any society.  Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.  Even the craven and generally useless United Nations begrudgingly attempted to acknowledge this fundamental truth: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. General Assembly, Article 12, December 10, 1948.

In the earliest American tradition, we find acknowledgment of the Natural Law (before the adoption of the Second Amendment).  The Declaration of Independence (1776) begins: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (Emphasis added).  The Declaration then enumerates the crimes of King George, among them many of which might be defended against under the doctrine explained herein.

sword

(In case of emergency only.  Google.)

Again, self-defense is a God-given, eternal right.  It is also a duty, one to be exercised only in dire need and with a grave sense of responsibility.  As with all matters of Natural Law, man-made legislation must attempt as closely as humanly possible to approximate the divine purposes of the Law.  In the next installment of this series, I intend to examine more ancient legislation regarding weapons and self-defense, specifically Roman Law.

Gun Rights Survey

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This morning I recived an email from The Second Amendment Foundation, a toothier NRAish organization, for those of you unfamiliar.  You can see the email as a website here: http://smna.conservativecontacts.com/track?t=v&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWlkPTExODA3Jm1zZ2lkPTgzMDAmZGlkPTQwMCZlZGlkPTQwMCZzbj0xNjc4MjMwMCZlaWQ9bG92ZXR0cEBlYXJ0aGxpbmsubmV0JmVlaWQ9bG92ZXR0cEBlYXJ0aGxpbmsubmV0JnVpZD1sb3ZldHRwQGVhcnRobGluay5uZXQmcmlkPTYwMjYxJmVyaWQ9NjAyNjEmZmw9Jm12aWQ9JnRnaWQ9JmV4dHJhPQ==&&&2100&eu=200&&&.  I hope the link works; the site contains a ten question survey, which I decided to turn into a short column.  Read on, friends.

By the way, check out the SAF: http://www.saf.org/.  They produced the video I posted a while back about racism in gun controls.  They do good work on behalf of our freedom.  Sign up for their email updates.

I took the liberty of cutting and pasting the survey whole from the email here, without permission.  I figure they won’t mind as I am promoting them.  Anyway, The questions are “yes” or “no” answerable.  I took the opportunity to show you how I would answer along with further explanation.  Here we go:

QUESTION 1: Do you own a semi-automatic firearm that has a detachable magazine, folding stock, or pistol grip?
YES NO
I would answer Yes, although all of you know I don’t really own any firearms.  I don’t belive in them…

 0321131203_0001

(Guns, like cigars and tobacco products are very dangerous.  Avoid both…)
QUESTION 2: Do you own a clip or magazine that holds more than ten rounds?
YES NO
 Again, with the above “truthful…” caveat, I answer Yes.
QUESTION 3: Do you think the Feinstein Gun Ban would reduce gun violence?
YES NO
 NO!  Gun control has nothing at all to do with ending violence.  Every country which enacts strict gun control (see Britain, Australia, etc.) experiences a dramatic increase in violent crime.  Gun control is about disarming the people so as to make them helpless in the face of tyranny.
QUESTION 4: Do you think you could need more than 10 rounds in a self-defense situation?
YES NO
 Yes!  Abosolutely!  The other day at the 2A forum at ASU (GRU), someone asked me this question.  I responded with the case of a local gun dealer who was confronted by 4 armed thugs in his shop.  They drove a van through the wall in hopes of a 100% discount on his merchandise.  Fortunately, he was armed with an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.  It took all 30 rounds to convince the “shoppers” to vacate the premises.  There is no rational reason to limit the capacity of self-defense as the chance of danger is never so limited.
QUESTION 5: Do you oppose all attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms?
YES NO
 Yes!  I oppose all attempts to ban any firearms – semi-automatic, AUTOMATIC, black-powder, or any other kind.  The free People should have available for their protection any and all means of defending their liberty and their lives.
QUESTION 6: Do you oppose regulations that limit the amount of ammunition you may purchase?
YES NO
 Yes!  Like the guns themselves, the only limits on the amount of ammunition one purchases should be desire and ability to pay.  I tend to oppose regulations period.
QUESTION 7: Do you believe gun control laws will only hurt law abiding citizens?
YES NO
 No.  Surprised?  Don’t be.  I think gun control hurts everyone.  Even a convicted felon might find a need for weaponry if attacked in a situation not of his creation.  Gun control only helps ACTIVE criminals – the government, banksters, street thugs, etc.  I don’t want to help any of these types.
QUESTION 8: Would you feel safer if all law-abiding citizens possessed firearms?
YES NO
 No.  Again, hear me out.  While I support the general right of all qualified, responsible individuals to possess firearms, there are a large number of my fellow citizens I do no trust.  I would not fell safer if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had a gun.  Some of these folks can’t operate automobiles or shopping carts without trouble.  They sure as heck aren’t competent to use weapons.  But, I leave this to them, the Lord, and anyone but the government to sort out.  You and I owning guns makes me safer (you too), regardless of how we feeeeeel.
QUESTION 9: Should laws that protect our self-defense such as the Stand Your Ground Law exist?
YES NO
 Yes, although the need for such laws is a sad commentary on our society.  The right to self defense is as natural as the laws of phsyics.  We should not need laws to protect the right, though it seems better to have them and not need them than the alternative.  Overall, I would prefer if people stopped committing crimes thus eliminating the need in the first place.  Again, that’s out of my personal power to control.
QUESTION 10: Do you believe the 2nd Amendment was written to protect U.S Citizens against a tyrannical take over?
YES NO

Yes!  There is no doubt about it.  While hunting, collecting, and sport shooting are all important, as is the right of defense against criminals and dangerous critters, the real purpose of the 2A was to ensure the People would always be able to resist tyranny if necessary.  Thank God we do not face such a situation today.  Such tyranny would only come from a regime that did things like tax our incomes and threaten us with death by drones – unheard of in Amerika.

There you have it!  My answers and views de jure.  Perhaps you have similar or divergent views.  You are entitled to them and, by all means, feel free to list them here in response to mine.  I only ask that, for any opinion you hold, make sure it is the result of reason and not a knee-jerk or parroted position.  Think for yourselves.  Arm yourselves.  Live free and prosper!