Stuff you can use.

Marko is spot on here.
Why the gun is civilization
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

News:
Forced to kill: 4 stories of survival http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/215469.html

Disabled vet shoots alleged carjacker. “…I'm not going to be the victim who can't defend himself anymore."
http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3879017&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1

Learning the rules for carrying a gun… http://www.wilsontimes.com/LIfe/Feature/289455703503417.php

Comment for Bud.

(This is continuation of comments on Bud's post found here. Since this
one is kind of long, I thought I'd post it here. Long posts are a little tedious
to read in the small Blogger comments window)

Bud, I wasn’t really comparing guns and cars. The right to keep and bear arms is, well, a right. The use and operation of a motor vehicle is a privilege, granted and regulated by the respective states. It is well within the power of the state to regulate the use and operation of motor vehicles, but the federal government and the states are strictly forbidden by the Constitution from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. I was, however, making the point that death is not the exclusive province of firearms. I did not mention registration, licenses, etc.

I would take issue with “inadvertent mayhem”. Of the approx. 40,000 people who die on the highways every year, approx. 20,000 involve alcohol. When your actions have unintended but harmful results, they are not inadvertent or accidental; they are criminal. Someone has decided, as evidenced by their actions, that their choice of drinking and driving is more important than the life of every person they meet on the road. Of the remaining 20,000, I would hazard a guess that a substantial portion is due to criminal negligence on the part of the drivers, such as driving while too tired, putting on makeup in the car, using a cell phone, eating, following too closely, driving too fast, reading a newspaper, and the list goes on.

I’m glad you agree that keeping and bearing arms is a right, even if you qualify it with “of some sort.” I’d be interested to see your reasoning behind limiting a human right. Do you apply the same description and standards to the rest of our civil rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, peaceable assembly, petition for redress of grievances against the government, search and seizure, and others, as you do to the civil right to keep and bear arms?

You see, the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not given to us in that document, nor are they given by government that government may take them away; we possess them at birth. (“…and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,”) If something is within the power of government to allow or deny, it is a privilege, not a right. When exercised responsibly so as not to infringe upon the rights of others, all our rights are, by nature, unlimited. This is called Liberty. However, when exercised irresponsibly and without respect of the rights of those around us (not liberty, but license: lack of due restraint), they are no longer rights, but crimes of various sorts.

When the man in Atlanta took the lives of people who were not threatening him, he was not exercising his right to bear arms or his right to self defense. He was committing the crimes of assault and murder. Participants in a riot are not exercising their right of peaceable assembly; they are committing a crime. If I were to slander or libel you, I would not be exercising free speech; I would be committing a crime.

And so we have laws defining, among other things, when abuse of a right becomes a crime. The purpose of laws is not to prevent crime; laws define crime and outline the penalties for unlawful behavior. Most people obey most laws not because they are afraid of the penalties, but because they desire to live at peace with their neighbors in an orderly fashion, and lawfulness is their normal way of life. Some people obey laws because, even though they would like to disobey some of them, they don’t want to suffer the penalty if caught and convicted. And then there are the rest, people who obey the laws only when it’s convenient for them because they have no respect for the people around them and, for some reason, don’t seem to dread the penalties. We call these people criminals. They do not respect our rights, and they impose their reckless selfishness on the rest of us. Criminals would pay absolutely no attention to any new restrictions or regulation of firearms. How do I know this?

It’s against the law for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. Yet how many convicted felons commit additional crimes with a firearm? In many jurisdictions, it’s against the law for anyone to carry a concealed weapon. Yet how many criminals pull a pistol from a pocket or a shotgun from under a coat to commit armed robbery? Need I go on? I think you get my point that criminals break the law. Any law that suits them. That is their nature.

In the sense you use it, it is not in the “nature” of guns to do or be anything. Nature is defined as a characteristic disposition or temperament, and guns are capable of neither. Nor are firearms good or evil, they are amoral. Firearms are tools. Some wield them to good purpose, others do not. Firearms do not take on the character of the person who uses them. Murders and assaults have been committed with knives, baseball bats, crowbars, telephones, ropes, rocks, sticks, motor vehicles, ash trays, axes, hammers, saws, stairs, fists, feet, and airplanes. Need I go on? Yet only guns have been singled out as “evil” things. Wouldn’t it make more sense to vilify the criminals rather than the tools they use? If you hire a carpenter to build a storage shed for you and he does it poorly, you don’t blame the hammer and saw when your shed falls down. It wasn’t the “nature” of the tools to do a bad job, it was a bad carpenter.

If someone misuses a firearm, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I have no problem with extended sentences for anyone who is convicted of committing a crime with any weapon, not just firearms. I do have a problem with laws that make it more difficult for law-abiding people to acquire, keep, or bear arms. Total bans on firearms do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at Washington, D.C. or New York City. In both those cities, it is nearly impossible for a law-abiding citizen to legally acquire a firearm, yet criminals acquire them easily. If a total ban doesn’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, isn’t it reasonable to expect the only people on whom additional “gun-control” laws have an impact are otherwise law-abiding citizens?

I claim no privilege to use arms against anyone I want, whenever I please. That is criminal. However, I do have the human right of self defense, which may require the use of arms if I am in fear for my life or grievous bodily harm. I also have the right to defend those for whom I have a responsibility to defend against the same threats. In this, I am answerable to myself and my God. I am not saying I am above the law.

I have no desire to use arms against any person, but as this is not a perfect world populated by perfect people, I must at least consider that eventuality. Really the question here is not whether or not one will defend oneself. If you are attacked, you will not just sit and take it. The question is what tools you will allow yourself to use. I think it’s a bad idea to drive nails with a rock. There are better tools to use. I will use the most efficient tools I can for self defense.

Please understand. However much I may try to persuade someone, it is not my intent to force anyone else to own or bear firearms. How people exercise their civil rights (or not) is of no concern to me as long their actions do not infringe upon my rights. If, for any reason, a person doesn’t want to own a weapon, that is their call and it is fine by me. Like me, everyone lives with the consequences of our daily decisions, whether good or bad. That is personal responsibility. It is another thing, however, to make that call for someone else and force them to live with the consequences of someone else's decision. That is tyranny.
GBW

Why, oh why?

Why do you think anti-civil rights leftists always take the rare, but well publicized, (though usually poorly reported) tales of some poor deranged soul who goes crazy and kills family and/or friends, and immediately jump on the, "If we had more 'gun control' legislation, that wouldn't have happened." And then make with the ad hominum attacks and comparisons to all firearms owners.

What part of CRAZY don't they understand?

Oh, wait. This is the same bunch that thinks laws will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Never mind.

Not their finest hour...

(Cartoon courtesy of www.redplanetcartoons.com)

Follow the link above to read about taking Winston Churchill out of British history books.

News Articles and Blogs about Concealed Carry

More than a little interesting to me, because I will be carrying in VA next weekend.
http://progunprogressive.com/?p=559

And while the Virginia story is fresh in your mind... if you're thinking about carrying in Knoxville, TN
http://www.coltcco.com/?p=180

Restricting gun carry restricts freedoms - Student article in Collegiate Times.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/9188/2007-07-19.html

Propaganda about evil guns from MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19853442/

Excellent letter to editor comparing restrictive New England states to less restrictive states.
Laws Restricting Guns Misfire
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-freshblack0720.artjul20,0,5491484.story

The right to keep and bear arms is a Civil Right...

Suit challenges Kentucky law barring non-citizens from concealed weapons

Before you read the rest of this post, take a moment to read the article at the link above.

In light of his recent comments about the citizenship requirement in the Kentucky concealed carry laws and the suit brought by a British national, Alexander M. Say, residing in Kentucky, see above, I have a few questions for State Representative Bob Damron (D-Nicholasville) specifically, and all Representatives and Senators in general.

1. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from attending religious services or otherwise practicing his faith?
2. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from speaking at a public gathering?
3. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from publishing articles in a newspaper?
4. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow police to enter Mr. May’s home or business and seize his property without a warrant or other due process?
5. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow police to arrest Mr. May and hold him without charges, and deny him access to counsel?
6. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow others to discriminate against Mr. May because of race or gender?
7. Do you really believe any non-citizen terrorist will be applying for a Kentucky Concealed Deadly Weapons License?
8. And assuming the answer would be “NO” to all of the above, we come to the most important question, then why would you deny Mr. May the Civil Right of bearing arms?

The right to keep and bear arms is one of our Civil Rights. It is not something that the national or state constitutions give us. It is not something that the legislature allows us. Our rights, according to the Constitution, were our rights before government existed. (See the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution) Nor does any one of our Civil Rights take precedence over any other. They are co-equal. If any would take first place, it would be the 2nd Amendment. Said Thomas Jefferson, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Mr. Jefferson recognized, as did most of the Founding Fathers the greatest danger to the rights of the people comes from government.

Representative Damron also said, quoting the AP article, “…the purpose of Kentucky's law is to allow "citizens" to protect themselves, which is what the Second Amendment to the Constitutional (sic) calls for.” Respectfully, Representative Damron, you are wrong.

Kentucky law does not “allow” citizens to protect themselves, and that is not what the 2nd Amendment is for, either. Self defense may be inferred, as the “security of a free State” recognizes not only external, but internal dangers such as insurrection or lawlessness. If the people are not secure personally, the State is not secure. The Kentucky Constitution does make specific mention of self defense. (Lest anyone think those wild Kentucky frontiersmen were responsible for what I have been told is the “archaic concept of private gun ownership”, the current Kentucky Constitution was adopted in 1891.)

“All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (Bill of Rights, § 1, para. 7)”

(And as regards Mr. May’s suit, the most pertinent phrases here are “all men” and “inherent and inalienable”.)

We need to reframe our defense of the right to keep and bear arms. “Civil Rights!” should be our frequent and consistent call and focus. We need to stop talking about being pro gun, or pro 2nd Amendment. It’s about denying us our Civil Rights!

We need start telling people it doesn’t have anything to do with hunting or sport shooting.

It’s not gun control; it is prior restraint of our Civil Rights.

It isn’t “reasonable regulation”; it is unreasonable and unconstitutional infringement of our Civil Rights.

Banning firearms is the constitutional equivalent of banning printing presses and padlocking churches.

We need to ask those we elect to office the kinds of questions I’ve asked above and hold them accountable for their answers.

Engage the opposition with a term most of them hold near and dear to their hearts and doesn't cause their eyes to glaze over at the beginning of the conversation.

I applaud Mr. May for standing for his Civil Rights, and wish him the best.

Is he going to kill me?

Too many people, particularly women, are told and go along with the wrong-headed advice of, "Let them have what they want. Don't fight them," when a criminal has chosen them for a victim. All that's left for the poor victim from that point is, "I wonder if he's going to kill me?

This post by Anarchangel might help you answer that question.

You have to wonder, if all the students at Virginia Tech had been given this excellent advice at orientation, would one or more of them have attempted to stop Cho? It's kind of difficult to aim well if several desks are being thrown at your head.

thx to Kim du Toit for the link.

To good to pass up - Free Front Sight Course

If you have website or blog, you can get a certificate for a free course at Front Sight by posting the links below.
Here is the link for the offer. I'm always happy to get something free, so here they are.

• Front Sight Firearms Training Institute


• Ignatius Piazza - founder of Front Sight


• Ignatius Piazza Blog


• Front Sight - in Guns & Ammo


• Front Sight - in New York Times


• Ignatius Piazza - in Times Democrat


• Front Sight - in London Times


• Ignatius Piazza - in Fort Worth Star Telegram


• Ignatius Piazza - in Chicago Tribune


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Life


• Ignatius Piazza - on Reform America


• Front Sight - on BBC News


• Front Sight - in US News & World Report


• Ignatius Piazza - in Washington Post


• Front Sight - in El Pais Seminal


• Front Sight - on USA Today


• Front Sight - in Santa Cruz Sentinel


• Front Sight - in Pajaronian Register


• Front Sight - in Gun Web


• Ignatius Piazza - in National Enquirer


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Sun


• Ignatius Piazza - in Forbes Magazine


• Ignatius Piazza - in Small Arms Review


• Front Sight - in Financial Times


• Front Sight - in Sierra Times


• Ignatius Piazza - on World Net Daily


• Ignatius Piazza - in El Mercurio


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Mercury


• Ignatius Piazza - in Playboy


• Ignatius Piazza - in San Francisco Chronicle


• Front Sight - in Los Angeles Times


• Front Sight - in Black Belt Magazine


• Front Sight - in Icon Magazine


• Front Sight - in The Mail on Sunday Review


• My Experience at Front Sight


• Front Sight - on CNN


• Front Sight - in Cybercast News Service


• Ignatius Piazza - in Gun World


• Ignatius Piazza - in Handvapen Guiden

Quote of the day.

"If we want to make our students safer, we should probably consider giving some of them the option of physical self-defense with something more than an organic chemistry book and Blackberry."

From an op/ed by Ed Leap for the Spartanburg (NC) Herald-Journal.
Complete text HERE.

Why carry a gun? Because a whole cop is too heavy!

The courts have held, and I quote, "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." (fine article by Peter Kasler)

My security system went off from an open door last winter at about 3 a.m. The monitoring company immediately called to dispatch the police and then called me. I live less than three miles from a major police station. It took a patrol car fourteen minutes to get to my house after I spoke to the monitoring company operator, and they called the police before they called me.

Luckily, it was a false alarm, but a lot could have happened in 14 minutes. If there had been one or more criminals in my home and they had been intent on harming my family, the police couldn't have done anything about it because the police weren't there.

I was there, and I have a duty to protect my family. The police do not. The police come to pick up the pieces, draw a chalk outline around the body on the floor, and try to catch the criminals who committed the crime.

If the police "protect" everyone so well, why do anti-gun Liberal celebrities who want other's guns taken away have paid bodyguards who carry firearms?

"There is something about a Republican..."

This old cowboy sure had a way with words...

“There is something about a Republican that you can only stand him just so long; and on the other hand, there is something about a Democrat that you can’t stand him quite that long.” —Will Rogers

And that's why I never miss an election.

(thx to Patriot Post for the quote)

Some thoughts on "Gun Control"

1. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution enumerates the self-evident, pre-existing human and civil right of a law-abiding individual (those who habitually obey the law) to keep (own and control) and bear (carry on or about their person or property) arms (generally considered firearms, but could be any other weapon) shall not (what part of NO don't people understand?) be infringed (hindered, encroached upon, denied) by government. A number of state constitutions also specifically address this civil right. Remember, rights are not given by government, but should be protected by government. (But don't hold your breath.)

2. Surveys of incarcerated career criminals (those who make a habit of breaking laws) show they are not hindered by gun-control laws because they don't obey any laws that would hinder their criminal activities. Therefore, any laws which make it more difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens (those who habitually obey the law) to acquire, keep and bear firearms are not aimed at criminals (those who habitually disobey laws) but at disarming law-abiding citizens, and are arguably unconstitutional.

3. Gun ownership by law-abiding individuals reduces violent crime. See http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html for a listing of scientific, scholarly studies which show a decline of violent crime in states where right-to-carry laws have been passed. There is also a link at the bottom of the page for works citing no reduction of crime due to right-to-carry laws. (Note: I have never seen gun control advocates forthcoming with information contrary to their position.)

4. Firearms are not evil. Firearms are only tools used to do various tasks as individuals wield them. And yes, tools are sometimes misused. Hammers, shovels, kitchen knives and automobiles have all been used to murder people. See http://www.a-human-right.com/ for more on firearms as tools. Nor are specific firearms “more evil” because of the way they look. See http://www.a-human-right.com/looks.html for “The Aesthetics of the Gun Debate.”

5. If it isn’t fully automatic (fires more than one shot with only one pull of the trigger), it isn’t an “assault rifle”. Fully automatic firearms have been regulated heavily since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Anyone who legally purchases a fully automatic firearm must undergo an FBI background check, have the approval of the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which they live, and pay an additional $200 tax over and above the purchase price of the firearm. And did you know you can only buy fully automatic firearms manufactured before 1986? And most of them start over $10,000.00?

6. Gun control in the United States was originally instituted in post Civil War Jim Crow laws to keep firearms out of the hands of black Americans. This legislation was an unconstitutional attempt to deprive black citizens of the opportunity to acquire, own, and bear firearms, a civil right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Gun control laws passed today are less discriminatory. Many of today’s gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment civil right of every citizen, regardless of race.



7. If you are in favor of restricting 2nd Amendment civil rights, take a moment and write down your proposal. Now, every where you have firearms or gun control, substitute "speech" or "religion" or "freedom of assembly" and see how it sounds. If the restrictions would be intolerable for your "acceptable" rights of free speech or religion or freedom of assembly, why are they tolerable to restrict any other civil right, including those enumerated in the 2nd Amendment?
GBW