Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Friday, June 24, 2011

A look at the future in store for us, if we allow it.

There are many in this country who believe guns are evil, that they cause people to do harmful, deadly things that they would never do if there only weren't any guns available. Of course, there is no logic capable of supporting this belief, nor any facts that encourage such a supposition, but they continue to believe it nonetheless.

For the moment, we will leave aside all of the excellent reasons for acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms, save one: self-defense. Most states have laws written which explain that the defense of another who is at risk of bodily injury or death is considered part of self-defense. So, you are not breaking the law if you defend a family member, a friend, a neighbor, or even a defenseless child or woman or elderly man, any of whom are not currently capable of defending themselves. The laws codify the right of an individual to use deadly force to save another, as well as yourself.

In this country (at least for the present moment), it is acceptable to use deadly force to defend yourself against home invaders. Of course, if those invaders happen to be cops, you will most likely die. But, if it happens to be a gang of balaclava-wearing men who appear intent upon doing you harm, you are entitled to defend yourself and any others in your home who might be at risk of said bodily injury or death. You need only fear for your life, or theirs, or fear bodily injury, and you may respond with all of the force necessary to stop or repel those invading your home.

However, if you happen to live in England, all bets are off. English law, established by some years of recent precedent, denies you not only the right to arm yourself with a firearm for self-defense, you are not permitted to injure your assailant in any manner whatsoever. There have been many instances of British subjects (subjects are different from citizens) defending themselves with a bat, or a club, or a knife, or even using their hands and their feet, and being arrested and sent to jail. English law does not accept the right of their subjects to defend themselves against aggression, no matter how egregious.

Here is a recent article about a family being arrested for murder when one of a group of masked men - wearing balaclavas - who forced their way into their home, ended up dying from a stab wound, which the article leads us to believe was caused by a member of the family. Frankly, I would probably simply clam up if it was me, and force the court to prove it was I who had stabbed the criminal, rather than one of his criminal cohort, who they may never even identify, let alone locate and bring in for questioning. Having read a bit about the current state of English law enforcement, though, it wouldn't surprise me to read that the local police offered one of the other criminals complete immunity to come forward and testify against this family they are accusing of murder.

Much like one of our "esteemed" U.S. Attorneys did in the 2006 Ramos/Compean case, where two Border Agents were sent to prison for shooting a drug smuggler in the ass when he attempted to flee the scene after one of the agents had been assaulted and injured. The U.S. Attorney gave the drug smuggler - arrested numerous times, a criminal known to American law enforcement even though he was a Mexican citizen - complete immunity to get on the stand and lie his bandaged ass off in the Attorney's successful attempt to send two good men to prison for the effrontery of stopping a known felon by wounding him, a criminal whom one of the agents thought had seriously injured his partner.

That was a travesty of justice. (It did not appear to be a case of excessive force, as seems to have become somewhat common these days.) Even so, it is actually more legitimate to scrutinize the actions of law enforcement - whose officers, are supposed to be held to a higher standard of behavior - than to criminalize an individual's right to protect himself and those he loves. In England it has become unacceptable to use force to defend oneself. It is reason for their judicial system to criminalize you and put you in gaol (jail).

There are many Democrats, and I include Obama in this group, who believe the European model of society is superior to American society. They believe the British National Health System is superior to ours, and wish to introduce many of its features into our healthcare system (The Affordable Care Act, aka: Obamacare). Many of these same people would love to see us disarmed, stripped of our firearms, in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has finally recognized the correctness of the Second Amendment as an individual right. (All the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, inhering to the individual, not a group.)

These people would love to see us suffer at the hands of criminals, as that is the price of disarming us. I realize some of you reading this may say it is outrageous of me to claim to know they would "love to see us suffer", but stop to consider this: if they would love to see an America without firearms (indisputable fact), and they realize, as they must, that this would mean increased depredation at the hands of criminals - burglars, robbers, rapists - then it is indeed fair to say they would love to see us suffer at their hands.

This could be, will be our fate if we allow our country to be molded into a socialist copy of Great Britain or the rest of Europe. If we allow our elected "representatives" to act upon their desires, their agenda rather than what we (The People) want and need as Americans. Do any of you imagine criminals will be less likely to break into our homes to steal, rob and rape our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers if we follow in Britain's footsteps? If we allow ourselves to be disarmed and incapable of resisting? Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. (Remember that the courts - including SCOTUS - have decided that the police have no duty to protect you, only to protect "society" at large.) They are certain to get there in time to draw a lovely chalk mark around your cooling corpse.

I read about a firearms trainer - shooting instructor - who was trying to teach a lady who actually hated guns how to use one (her husband talked her into attending the class.) She told him she would never actually shoot at another human being, and that is why she couldn't hit the target, even close up. He asked her to think about being at a service station, putting gas into her vehicle, and then walking to the attendant to pay. As she walks back to her vehicle, she sees a man unbuckle her three year old daughter from her car seat and throw her into his van. The trainer asked her what she would do. If she saw this happening and was armed with a gun, would she use it? The lady became almost enraged thinking of some stranger, some pederast snatching her child, and said she would kill him, with her bare hands if that were all she had. Not being completely in denial, she realized she could indeed shoot in such a circumstance, and decided she needed to learn how to handle a firearm after all. She became quite proficient with her weapon, dedicated to developing her ability to defend her loved ones, as she wouldn't have merely to defend herself.

So, emulating the English is something to devoutly wish does not happen. However, if those who are pushing us to "think globally", who want us to become a clone of European society, have their way, it could be our future. Where we will be jailed for resisting anyone who invades our home, even the street trash who feel safe invading our homes. The ones without badges and the ones with badges.


  1. Good argument, Reg. Well put together.

    A while back - maybe last summer - a British "star" (pop singer, I think) was at home and saw someone outside her kitchen window apparently sneaking up on the house. If I recall, she saw he was armed. She scared him off with a butcher knife. I'm sure that if she was not a star and was just a regular subject, she would have been jailed for daring to defend herself.

    There is that one older British gentleman who protected his family with a shotgun and is now serving the rest of his life in jail for the audacity to defend his family and himself.

    If you're as big a crook as most of our administration, how can you possibly accept the idea of people defending themselves against criminals?

  2. Yes, they fear a populace which has awakened to the realization that it is not only OK to shoot criminals, it may even be desirable.

    "Also, I will shoot you in the f*cking face."
    (See my post "Soul Mate", above :-)

  3. Shoot shovel and shut up.
    Or maybe hire a couple of Mexicans to dig the hole for you. They can use the money to send back home to their starving families.
    After all - they are here to do the jobs that Anglos won't do.


Sorry, folks. I was completely ignorant about comment rules. Anyone can post, but I'd prefer a name, even if it is made up. Anonymous posts just seem cheap, if you know what I mean. Also, if you want to argue a point, that's fine. Cheap shots and name calling towards me or another person commenting (ad hominem) is rude and will get you banned. Other than that, I'd love to get some comments.