Save the whales -- collect the whole set!
2nd Amendment
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
The Constitutional Tripwire
One of my best friends served in the Air Force at about the same time that I was in the Navy, and one of the places he served was in South Korea. He explained to me about how few military members they have along the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) relative to the estimated threat, and why that is - it is the concept of the Tripwire. For those of you who have seen it in the movies (either military movies or the ones where they have lots of zombies), you will immediately recognize the utility of such a thing.
It is a simple concept - a string or wire stretched across a putatively open gap, with some kind of noisemaker attached (such as a few pebbles in an empty can), so that when the line is crossed, the noise will alert the defenders as to both the breach and the location. It can be as simple as a string, a can and a few pebbles to scare away the neighbor’s goat or as complicated as infrared and motion detectors with low-light level cameras and armed security responders with STK authorization.
The tripwire is not a defense, it is a deterrent - it is supposed to warn the encroaching forces that they have gone far enough and that any further advance will be met with much larger - and much deadlier - forces.
We have the same thing in our Constitution, and it is the Second Amendment.
Our Founders had just spent years of their lives and much of their personal fortunes getting rid of an oppressive government, and they recognized that the results of their efforts would not last forever, so they wanted to make sure that their descendants would be able to make the same decision, so they included a means for the People to take back control of their country from the men who thought that their elections were actually coronations.
Not only is the Second Amendment the one that protects all of the others, it is also the tripwire that warns of a much larger encroachment, requiring the response of those willing to defend that particular hilltop.
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.
People make much of the part about the Militia, ignoring two important things, one a flaw in logic, the other a flaw in definition.
The first is a flaw in logic, because they are ignoring some basic parts of sentence diagramming. That first clause - “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...” - is what is known as a ”dependent clause”, and it cannot stand alone, but is intended to eatablish the basis for the independent clause of the sentence.
An example would be “Because Jimmy’s favorite flavor of ice cream is strawberry...”. It establishes a likely reason for the action described in the independent clause ("… his mother made sure she had some ready for his birthday party."), but not necessarily the only reason. Another reason is that perhaps everyone in the family also likes strawberry, or that it had been on sale, or other reasons, any one of which might be sufficient to explain the motive behind the action (buying strawberry ice cream). The independent clause “...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” can and should stand alone.
The second error lies in that of not being able to describe exactly what defines a member of a Militia. According to Federal Law, every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 is considered a member of the Militia, and the word has never been defined anywhere else that I can find, so that is the definition used in American Law.
The need for the States to be able to defend themselves via their various Militias is more than enough reason to make sure that everyone had the right to own and carry whatever weapons may be necessary to defend themselves against the various threats that the average citizen might come into contact with during his day (or night). There were highwaymen (seeking to redistribute the wealth), hostile natives (especially along the frontier), angry fauna or whatever. Just because the threat has shifted slightly with the times doesn’t mean that people don’t still run into muggers (seeking to redistribute the wealth), hostile natives (especially along La Frontera), angry former employees seeking their 15 minutes by shooting up someplace where guns are forbidden, or whatever.
The attempt by the government to take that power away is nothing more than an attempt to take away that tripwire. The police not only cannot protect you, they are under precisely ZERO legal responsibility to do so.
Friday, April 03, 2009
By now you’ve all heard
of the shooting in Binghamton, NY, and while I wish to express my sincerest condolences to the families of those who were killed or injured, I am most interested by the kneejerk cries for gun control.
Why?
Why is it the almost-instinctive reaction to take away the guns from the people who didn’t do anything wrong?
One guy commits a horrible crime, and the reaction is to punish everyone else by taking away their lawful property? Why is there never a hue and cry to take away sharp knives after hearing about a mugging at knife-point? (I mean, who needs to cut their steak, eh? Red meat is bad for you anyway. And we can always have a cop stop by and cut your meat for you...)
Fuck that. This sunnuvabeach had a hunting rifle, a pistol (which was immediately described as “semi-automatic”, as though they were warding off the Evil Eye or something) and a hunting knife. If he had strangled one of his victims with wire, would anyone be screaming that we need to ban guitars and pianos? (Oh, and that bit about the pistol being “semi-automatic”? Unless the pistol is a revolver, it’s semi-automatic.)
I just don’t think that I want to live in a country where the only people allowed to own weapons are the police and the military.
“...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."”
Thursday, June 26, 2008
YES!!!!!
It is now official. The Heller case has been decided, and Justice Antonin Scalia has written the majority decision. (You can read the pdf file here, if you wish.)
Held
1. The Second Amendment protects and individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
There’s lots more, and I’ll be skimming through it today as circumstances allow, but this is a BIG win for the Second Amendment.
One small concern that Patterico correctly points out.
5-4. Let that sink in, folks. Even though it was expected, it’s now official. Ponder it for a moment.
If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.
And the Revolution would have been kick-started into gear, sooner rather than later. Count on it.
Update 1:
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional
They don’t address the licensing requirement (which I have no beef with, anyway), nor does it touch any of the CCW/OC issues. Just that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
If you had to re-write the Bill of Rights
what would you change? Or even elsewhere in the Constitution?
I’d eliminate the dependent clause in the Second Amendment, and make the right even more emphatic, so that it would simply read, “The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Period. End of sentence. So don’t even try it, bub, or we’ll string you from the nearest tall structure.”
What about you? (Just for the sake of saving you some Googling, here’s a link to the Online Constitution.)
Friday, March 09, 2007
Hot diggity!
It’s about time!
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
And there are strong indications (although not guaranteed) that the ruling will:
1) be upheld by the full en banc Circuit Court
2) be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court
3) be granted certiorari by the Supremes (which only takes four affirmative votes of the nine)
4) be upheld (since the COTUS - aka “Law Of The Land” - trumps local and state and Federal legislation)
And all, just in time for next fall’s election, too!
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Those Who Forget History
Cruising through the Vault while checking trackbacks and I ran across this gem.
1. An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Glock: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it is about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you do not know your rights, you do not have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
12. The second Amendment is in place, in case they ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns have only two enemies: rust and liberals.
15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
16. You do not shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control--it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the ‘gun control laws’ we have, do not make more.
24. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. ‘...A government of the people, by the people, for the people...’
Always worth remembering…
UPDATE: I forgot one: “27. Democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed Lamb contesting the vote.” (Benjamin Franklin)
Monday, November 13, 2006
Time to start making plans
You know what the nice thing about being a pessimist is? A pessimist is either always being proved right, or pleasantly surprised.
Since we will have Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and John Murtha as Majority Leader in the House, with Charlie Rangel chairing the powerful House Ways And Means Committee and Conyers chairing the House Judiciary, and Pat ”Habeus Corpus Rights For Terrorists” Leahy running the Senate Judiciary, it only stands to reason that they would immediately drop all of their partisan bickering and get to work solving the problems confronting our nation, right?
Right?
{crickets}
Yeah, I didn’t really think so, either…
So, in the spirit of pessimists everywhere (and pragmatists, too), I wish to remind all of my readers to start stocking up on essentials in the event of local disaster. No, I don’t want to speculate on any particular kind of disaster that may happen to our nation while engaged in a war with an enemy who is cheering the Democratic victory and promising to bring the battle back to our shores - including blowing up the White House.
First, go read this story. Go ahead, I’ll wait, it’s kinda long.
No, go read the story.
*
*
*
First, yes, I know it’s Speculative Fiction (NOT Sci-Fi), and rather far-fetched in some of the details, but as the author points out in his (even longer) follow-up, imagine how a Time Traveller appearing in 1900 Europe would have been perceived, just reeling off the list of atrocities about to happen in Europe.
Imagine with what fury and scorn they would have rejected the Time Traveler’s simple, sad litany of events to come.
A Germany gone insane and slaughtering millions of Jews? Unthinkable.
A Europe ravaged by not one but two World Wars consuming most of the continent’s cities and cultures and killing a hundred million people? Ridiculous.
A continent ruled by reason, science, trade and diplomacy, a continent that had been at peace for decades, suddenly transformed by a rash of fanatical transformational fantasy ideologies into a reeking graveyard of slaughtered innocents and murdered innocence? Obscene.
The Time Traveler’s message would have been heard as pure hateful vitriol.
Now, on to business.
Get a pen and paper. Write this down to take with you on the next trip to the store. (Okay, so you may have to get some of these things at the hardware store, but that’s still legal...)
- 55 gallon plastic trash can with lid
- Water (one five-gallon jug per person in your home - distilled will do, but avoid flavored)
- Non-perishable foodstuffs (dried pastas, cereals, canned fruit, soups, kool-aid packets, etc.)
- Battery-powered radio and flashlight (with spare batteries)
- First-aid kit and spare medications (don’t forget spare pairs of glasses)
- Whistle, steel mirror
- Dust Masks
- At least two packs of Baby-wipes per person (for hygiene and clean-up)
- Two hand-operated can openers (a spare will come in handy)
- Matches in a waterproof container
- Heavy-duty sleeping bag and 2 blankets per person
There are lots of things I’m forgetting, I know - partly because my brain is only working at about 70% efficiency today, and partly because if I include EVERYTHING that might be needed, it’s too much to fit into an 18-wheeler, much less a 55-gallon drum.
Think about it.
What kinds of natural disasters strike (or are likely to strike) in your part of the world - tornadoes, floods, massive power outage, blizzards, earthquakes, house fires, Sarin on the subway, dirty bombs?
What are you and your family going to need to survive for not less than three days with NO help whatsoever? (Seriously, you need to posit the absolute worst case scenario, and plan accordingly.)
What kind of equipment will you need (pots, pans, camp stoves, utensils, plates, cups, bowls, etc.)?
And, most importantly, what will you need to have to protect your hoarded wealth? Because if you actually manage to set all this aside while your Kumbayyah neighbors do not, and the hummus hits the HVAC, exactly how desperate will they become when it is clear that you are neither hungry nor thirsty nor dirty...? And they are...? And there are lots of these nice heavy rocks just lying around...?
Plan for the worst, folks. That way, you will either be ready for it when it comes, or be pleasantly surprised. Or both.
Less...
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Brady Laws
What a waste!
Sherman, let’s step into the Way-Back Machine (TM) to a quarter-century ago. Specifically, to March 30, 1981, outside the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC, just after a AFL-CIO luncheon. Outside the hotel waits a crowd of reporters - and a weird young man with a fixation on Jodie Foster.
The new President and his entourage step out into open air and that weird young man steps forward, and fires off six hurried rounds from a .22 caliber revolver - hitting President Reagan, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy, DC police officer Tom Delehanty, and White House Press Secretary James Brady.
The other three fully recovered, but Brady was shot in the head and was the most seriously wounded of the four, becoming permanently disabled. He has since campaigned for all kinds of gun control laws, and no one can possibly doubt his dedication or his motivation to that cause.
And who can blame him, eh?
However.....
It would make a lot more sense if anything he was campaigning for actually worked. I mean, if I had a job to reduce gun violence and what I was doing wasn’t working, I would try something different. Wouldn’t you?
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.
Which means that the Brady Laws are insane.
As the author says, “If you want to look for a cure for violence, you might as well look to the weather, or to the prime interest rate as to the Brady Campaign. Statistically, they all exert about the same amount of influence on death and violence.”
h/t: mAss Backwards
Less...
Monday, July 03, 2006
A new Second Amendment Blogger
I’ve been communicating with our newest Loyal Reader over the last few days (and he even supplied tomorrow’s Special Share), and about the only bad thing I can say is that he is stuck on Blog*Spit.
Go forth and welcome him to the Horde.
The Pistolero. I’m adding him to the BlogRoll, too.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Shall NOT be infringed!
I might be coming back to this, since it is the Second Amendment that ensures all the others. The ability to defend ourselves - against our own Government, if the need arises - is what guarantees us the authority to determine our own destinies.
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.
Many people have argued this in terms of only those persons who are currently serving in a militia being allowed to “keep and bear arms”, but this can be disproven with one teeny-tiny little thing - the comma.
There is a comma to indicate a break in thought, and the subsequent use of the specific phrase “the people” means a very difinitely identified group of people. You cannot claim that the phrase “the people” means “every American citizen, regardless of race, age, religion, gender or any of a dozen other identifying factors” in:
- the Preamble
- Article I, Section 2
- the First Amendment
- the Fourth Amendment
- the Ninth Amendment
- the Tenth Amendment, and
- the Seventeenth Amendment
while trying to claim that it only means “specific and pre-designated agents of the government” in the Second Amendment.
************************
Now for a bit of sardonic humor, courtesy of Frank J. at IMAO:
AMAZING BELIEFS PART 1
That incidents where people shoot criminals in self defense are very rare, and shouldn’t be used as excuses to own guns, just as incidents where presidential press secretaries are shot are very rare, and shouldn’t be used as excuses to ban guns.
That guns are the real cause of crime, but we will blame and jail the owner of said gun for the crime, even if the owner wasn’t the person involved.
That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won’t harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.
That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.
That the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks, just as the First Amendment only applies to quills and lead type.
That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because “Violence never settles anything.”
That it’s wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.
That a gun with an 11 round magazine is dangerous, but a gun with fifteen 10 round magazines is much safer.
That we should rehabilitate criminals and treat them as people, but never let them own guns, even if their crime was nonviolent.
That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker.
That if there’d been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.
That pilots have enough to do in the cockpit, without having to worry about distractions like firearms to stop hijackers and fire extinguishers to stop fires, and these activities should be left to “trained professionals.”
That such “trained professionals” will only be available on one flight in five.
That rather than have the pilot risk human life by shooting at a hijacker, we should simply have the Air Force shoot down the plane, thus preserving life.
That rapists prefer to attack armed women so they can take the guns and use them against the victims.
That 1 firearm owner in 10,000 will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime, and this is far more frightening than the 25% of drivers who will cause a serious or fatal accident.
That you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.
That the press reporting a shooting is “responsible,” but failing to report that the shooter was stopped by an armed citizen is an attempt to prevent the “glamorization of guns.”
That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.
That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.
That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).
That “assault weapons” are “very powerful” but big game hunters oddly prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs.
That assault rifles are “underpowered” for hunting, but can “punch through police body armor.” More powerful hunting rifles, however, cannot.
That we should outlaw bullet proof vests so criminals can’t use them, and private citizens should be then proud to be killed in the crossfire, knowing they are doing their part for society.
That we don’t need the Second Amendment or arms to protect our Constitution, but should instead use the courts and the government system, just as we did in 1776.
That the lack of mention of guns in wills in colonial American cities proves that most Americans didn’t own them, just as the lack of mention of outhouses proves that most people squatted in the yard.
That this alleged lack of ownership is as relevant to the Second Amendment as the lack of interest in newspapers at the time was relevant to the First Amendment.
That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but “gun nuts” are “obsessed with violence.”
That the laws against specifically named weapons have been found unconstitutional, that the laws against “types” of weapons have been considered vague, that the laws against cosmetic features are easy to comply with and still produce the identical mechanism, and that laws against particular mechanisms are unconstitutional is an indication of the “obsessiveness” of firearms enthusiasts to do what they enjoy doing, against the wishes of the narrow minded prudes who wish to stop them, and not an indication of the obsessiveness of the ignorant paranoids who fear them.
That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.
That according to investigative reports, alarm systems are expensive, often easily defeated, and the alarm company may not respond for three hours, even then only driving by rather than stopping, but an alarm system is a more reliable means of protecting the home than a firearm.
That less guns in an altercation is a good thing, so you should not be armed against a criminal to keep yourself safe.
That rather than spend a few hundred dollars on a firearm and an afternoon learning how to use it, one should instead spend thousands of dollars and several years learning a martial art, so you’ll be well-prepared to fight anyone, as long as they’re in your gender division and weight class.
That it’s terrible when police officers plant weapons on a suspect to enable them to make an arrest, but we should have tougher laws against weapons and trust the police not to abuse them in this way.
That police arriving at 80mph are a better way to stop criminals than bullets arriving at 800mph.
That because of the bombing at Oklahoma City and the knife-point hijacking on September 11, we should take guns away from people who weren’t involved.
That a police officer under 21 shouldn’t be able to buy a gun for off duty use, because his competence depends on that blue jacket.
That people buy guns as “substitute penises,” because they know that only people with small penises ever get attacked by criminals.
That Hitler and Stalin didn’t disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other “undesirables.” (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post, quoting http://www.potomac-inc.org)
That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the “legitimate fears” they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I’m beginning to wonder.)
That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren’t allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.
That it’s wrong to destroy someone’s life over an administrative crime by jailing them and impoverishing their family, unless that crime is owning a gun.
That a law that allows someone to keep doing “X” that has been legal for years, in the face of another, badly written law that says they can’t do “Y”, is a “loophole.”
That it’s wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn’t need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought guns…illegally.
That when someone dies because they couldn’t get a drug the government won’t approve, it’s tragic, but when someone dies because they couldn’t defend themselves with a gun the government won’t approve, that’s just life.
That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don’t.
That guns are a symbol of white male oppression, and we should address this by banning inexpensive guns that are available to poor minorities, guns with less than 6 lbs trigger pull which are useable by females and smaller men, require special storage and licensing fees to stop “those people” from affording them, require proof of “need” such as political connections or large acreage or the money to go on expensive safaris, and all this will stop those evil white males.
That governments should maintain the “legitimate monopoly of force,” because the American Revolutionaries, the Maquissards, the Israelis in Palestine and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan were “illegitimate,” but Hitler, Mao, Pot, Mussolini and Stalin were “legitimate.”
That the “Reasonable” uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it’s acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices.
That .50 caliber rifles are both “very rare” and “selling like hotcakes.”
That the fact that .50 caliber rifles are very rare justifies banning them, just as the rarity of Lamborghinis and other high-performance cars justifies banning them.
That one has the moral obligation to make a citizen’s arrest when one sees a felony in progress, and that it should be accomplished by yelling at the perpetrator, “Stop! Or I’ll yell ‘stop’ again!” rather than by drawing a weapon.
That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.
That a gun is merely an inadequate substitute for a penis, so when attacked by a mugger one should pull out a…
That a gun is a symbolic penis…what this has to do with defending one’s life I have no idea. It simply serves to prove that anti-defense psychiatrists clearly have Freudian issues that THEY need to address.
That if honest people give up their weapons, the criminals and dictators will give up theirs, as Chicago street gangs and Hitler have demonstrated.
That only the government should control guns, just as only the government should control broadcasting, and only the government should control religion.
* * * *
(c) 2005 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy for
non-profit use as long as proper credit is given. Please contact the
author when you do, through http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com. It is prefereed
that this (c) notice be attached. For online fora that will reject
copyrighted works, please note the source in text.
Less...
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Second Amendment Alert
Found this in a comment thread over at John Hawkins. It’s really long, so I tucked most of it below the fold…
******
Courtesy of Frank J. at IMAO:
AMAZING BELIEFS PART 1
That incidents where people shoot criminals in self defense are very rare, and shouldn’t be used as excuses to own guns, just as incidents where presidential press secretaries are shot are very rare, and shouldn’t be used as excuses to ban guns.
That guns are the real cause of crime, but we will blame and jail the owner of said gun for the crime, even if the owner wasn’t the person involved.
That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won’t harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.
That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.
That the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks, just as the First Amendment only applies to quills and lead type.
That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because “Violence never settles anything.”
That it’s wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.
That a gun with an 11 round magazine is dangerous, but a gun with fifteen 10 round magazines is much safer.
That we should rehabilitate criminals and treat them as people, but never let them own guns, even if their crime was nonviolent.
That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker.
That if there’d been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.
That pilots have enough to do in the cockpit, without having to worry about distractions like firearms to stop hijackers and fire extinguishers to stop fires, and these activities should be left to “trained professionals.”
That such “trained professionals” will only be available on one flight in five.
That rather than have the pilot risk human life by shooting at a hijacker, we should simply have the Air Force shoot down the plane, thus preserving life.
That rapists prefer to attack armed women so they can take the guns and use them against the victims.
That 1 firearm owner in 10,000 will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime, and this is far more frightening than the 25% of drivers who will cause a serious or fatal accident.
That you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.
That the press reporting a shooting is “responsible,” but failing to report that the shooter was stopped by an armed citizen is an attempt to prevent the “glamorization of guns.”
That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.
That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.
That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).
That “assault weapons” are “very powerful” but big game hunters oddly prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs.
That assault rifles are “underpowered” for hunting, but can “punch through police body armor.” More powerful hunting rifles, however, cannot.
That we should outlaw bullet proof vests so criminals can’t use them, and private citizens should be then proud to be killed in the crossfire, knowing they are doing their part for society.
That we don’t need the Second Amendment or arms to protect our Constitution, but should instead use the courts and the government system, just as we did in 1776.
That the lack of mention of guns in wills in colonial American cities proves that most Americans didn’t own them, just as the lack of mention of outhouses proves that most people squatted in the yard.
That this alleged lack of ownership is as relevant to the Second Amendment as the lack of interest in newspapers at the time was relevant to the First Amendment.
That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but “gun nuts” are “obsessed with violence.”
That the laws against specifically named weapons have been found unconstitutional, that the laws against “types” of weapons have been considered vague, that the laws against cosmetic features are easy to comply with and still produce the identical mechanism, and that laws against particular mechanisms are unconstitutional is an indication of the “obsessiveness” of firearms enthusiasts to do what they enjoy doing, against the wishes of the narrow minded prudes who wish to stop them, and not an indication of the obsessiveness of the ignorant paranoids who fear them.
That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.
That according to investigative reports, alarm systems are expensive, often easily defeated, and the alarm company may not respond for three hours, even then only driving by rather than stopping, but an alarm system is a more reliable means of protecting the home than a firearm.
That less guns in an altercation is a good thing, so you should not be armed against a criminal to keep yourself safe.
That rather than spend a few hundred dollars on a firearm and an afternoon learning how to use it, one should instead spend thousands of dollars and several years learning a martial art, so you’ll be well-prepared to fight anyone, as long as they’re in your gender division and weight class.
That it’s terrible when police officers plant weapons on a suspect to enable them to make an arrest, but we should have tougher laws against weapons and trust the police not to abuse them in this way.
That police arriving at 80mph are a better way to stop criminals than bullets arriving at 800mph.
That because of the bombing at Oklahoma City and the knife-point hijacking on September 11, we should take guns away from people who weren’t involved.
That a police officer under 21 shouldn’t be able to buy a gun for off duty use, because his competence depends on that blue jacket.
That people buy guns as “substitute penises,” because they know that only people with small penises ever get attacked by criminals.
That Hitler and Stalin didn’t disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other “undesirables.” (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post, quoting http://www.potomac-inc.org)
That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the “legitimate fears” they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I’m beginning to wonder.)
That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren’t allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.
That it’s wrong to destroy someone’s life over an administrative crime by jailing them and impoverishing their family, unless that crime is owning a gun.
That a law that allows someone to keep doing “X” that has been legal for years, in the face of another, badly written law that says they can’t do “Y”, is a “loophole.”
That it’s wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn’t need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought guns…illegally.
That when someone dies because they couldn’t get a drug the government won’t approve, it’s tragic, but when someone dies because they couldn’t defend themselves with a gun the government won’t approve, that’s just life.
That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don’t.
That guns are a symbol of white male oppression, and we should address this by banning inexpensive guns that are available to poor minorities, guns with less than 6 lbs trigger pull which are useable by females and smaller men, require special storage and licensing fees to stop “those people” from affording them, require proof of “need” such as political connections or large acreage or the money to go on expensive safaris, and all this will stop those evil white males.
That governments should maintain the “legitimate monopoly of force,” because the American Revolutionaries, the Maquissards, the Israelis in Palestine and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan were “illegitimate,” but Hitler, Mao, Pot, Mussolini and Stalin were “legitimate.”
That the “Reasonable” uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it’s acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices.
That .50 caliber rifles are both “very rare” and “selling like hotcakes.”
That the fact that .50 caliber rifles are very rare justifies banning them, just as the rarity of Lamborghinis and other high-performance cars justifies banning them.
That one has the moral obligation to make a citizen’s arrest when one sees a felony in progress, and that it should be accomplished by yelling at the perpetrator, “Stop! Or I’ll yell ‘stop’ again!” rather than by drawing a weapon.
That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.
That a gun is merely an inadequate substitute for a penis, so when attacked by a mugger one should pull out a…
That a gun is a symbolic penis…what this has to do with defending one’s life I have no idea. It simply serves to prove that anti-defense psychiatrists clearly have Freudian issues that THEY need to address.
That if honest people give up their weapons, the criminals and dictators will give up theirs, as Chicago street gangs and Hitler have demonstrated.
That only the government should control guns, just as only the government should control broadcasting, and only the government should control religion.
* * * *
(c) 2005 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy for
non-profit use as long as proper credit is given. Please contact the
author when you do, through http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com. It is prefereed
that this (c) notice be attached. For online fora that will reject
copyrighted works, please note the source in text.
Less...
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
More From Da Perfessor
If it weren’t for him, I wouldn’t have found this great column by John Stossel on the worthlessness of gun control laws.
I wanted to know why the laws weren’t working, so I asked the experts. “I’m not going in the store to buy no gun,” said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. “So, I could care less if they had a background check or not.”
“There’s guns everywhere,” said another inmate. “If you got money, you can get a gun.”
Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don’t obey the law. (That’s why we call them “criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there’s money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.
A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, “When you gonna rob somebody you don’t know, it makes it harder because you don’t know what to expect out of them.”
No kidding, huh? It isn’t a coincidence that concealed carry laws have consistently driven crime rates down, folks.
There’s more…
And there’s another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment—“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”—as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn’t mean Congress can’t prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren’t necessary for the common defense.
But the money quote about that whole “militia” argument?
Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.
It’s actually 18 to 45, but here’s that link, in case you think he’s kidding.
Read the whole thing.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Always worth repeating
Having posted it before, I was reminded of it, went looking, and I wanted to share this with everyone again, because the best training program will always touch on the fundamentals every now and then, just to keep everyone’s mind on why they are fundamentals....
For your entertainment and edification, I present “Rules For A Gunfight”, as updated with help from my readers.
(If I have forgotten any, let me know.)
Rules for a Gunfight
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap - life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.”
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work. Be thinking about a back-up to the back-up, just in case.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don’t drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4”.
25. You can’t miss fast enough to win.
26. If the enemy is in range, so are you.
27. The .32 in your boot is infinitely more effective than the .45 in your closet.
***
This is the law:
* The purpose of fighting is to win.
* There is no possible victory in defense.
* The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.
* The final weapon is the brain.
* All else is supplemental.
- John Steinbeck
Less...
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
This is a war-warning, folks
I ‘m not suggesting that anything will necessarily happen, but I would strongly urge any of you who have not yet read this story to do so now. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv spoke with FOX Fan Central about what Americans can do to protect themselves in case of a terror attack.
Do you believe another terrorist attack is likely on American soil?
I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.
Be aware, people. Be alert. Start noticing stuff. If you live in a State where you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, I would urge those of you comfortable with the concept to start carrying a weapon and a spare clip.
Keep an emergency kit handy:
- water bottle
- small towel or cloth
- flashlight
- first aid kit
Know what’s going on around you. And if you feel something weird is going on, GET OUT OF THERE!!! Notify a cop or security person, if time and safety allow, but get clear. That “Spidey Sense” can save you, but only if you listen to it. You may walk away a hundred times without incident, but it will save your life that hundred-and-first time…
Saturday, June 25, 2005
The Constitutional Reset Button, Part 2
(This is a Patriot’s Journey post. Others joining in are Alex, Scott, JimK, and Moorewatch. If you wish to join in, feel free.)
Our Founding Fathers recognized that we might need to pull power back from the Government, so they did everything they could to ensure that we would be able to do so. The first freedoms in the Bill of Rights prove this. They are the Freedom of religion (the relationship between a person and his/her Diety), Freedom of Speech and of the Press (to express ideas, even if it isn’t in person), Freedom of Assembly (to get together and discuss options), and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances (to give them a final chance to compact their Governmental Feces).
If all else fails, there is the Second Amendment - the authority to push that button and the power to back it up.
Just food for thought… but I’m buying ammo.