Thursday, December 20, 2012

Think it through

            Over the course of the past week I have, like many of you, run the gamut of emotions from sadness, to frustration, to outright anger. Throughout all this I have tried, as I always do, to remain focused on the real problem and how best to deal with it. Sadly, there are many who do not share this approach.

            I have noted that many people, liberals, who are friends or family, have had harsh things to say to or about me, and other gun owners. They speak as though I were the one who murdered 27 innocent people in Newtown, CT last week. They seek to place blame and vent their anger on someone, anyone, so that their need for vindication of their beliefs may be sated. Frankly, I understand their anger – I feel it, too. Anytime innocent people are victimized, as they were in Newtown, it makes me angry. It makes me angry because it does not have to be. There are ways to minimize the carnage in such situations, yet they are all too often overlooked in favor of emotion-based, feel-good legislation. I say minimize, because I know that you can never completely stop madmen from carrying out their crimes, but you can seek to mitigate their effects.

            But I would like to walk through an analysis of the current attack and what I feel is the best, the only, logical approach to dealing with any future such attacks. First, who is to blame? The answer seems obvious to me, but given the slipshod reporting being done and the agenda that our government seeks to advance, one may be excused for being a little reticent to conclusively apply blame. However, given what we have been told thusfar it would appear that a sick, disturbed young man named Adam Lanza is the culprit. He took the guns, inanimate objects, and used them to murder 27 innocent people to include 20 children and 7 disarmed adults. I use the word disarmed for a reason. More on that later.

            There are those on the left, politically, in the media, and among the citizenry, who seem to want to blame anyone but Adam Lanza. They blame the NRA, the GOA, our Founding Fathers, angry white men, Republicans, the Tea Party, conservatives, video games (but not Tarantino movies), even me, but last on the list, if he’s included at all, is Adam Lanza. I would like to add another category to that list, if I may be so bold – Politicians who pass laws disarming law-abiding citizens. Were I to follow the example of my liberal friends I would have to include them as well, as they vote for the liberal politicians who pass these laws, but I am not going to play their game. Yes, disarm! That is what a “gun free zone” does, it disarms the law-abiding in favor of the criminals among us. I find that abhorrent and will do everything in my power to correct that wrong. You see, I have focused my anger toward doing something constructive – standing up for my rights (and yours) as an American.

            What are these rights and how did they come to be? Does the government grant us those rights or do they come from another source? There are those, Christians and other religions, who submit that our rights come from God. Only God can grant those rights and no man can take them away. Others posit the idea that these rights are inherent in our humanity. Simply by being born we have these rights, but again, no man or government, has the right to take them away. If you operate under the illusion that your rights come from a government, that the government has the power to grant you those rights, then you must accept the fact that that same government can take away those rights whenever it desires. Is that really the way you liberals see it? Do you think that your flawed fellow human beings, in the form of politicians/government, have the right to take away your rights and freedoms? Are they even capable of determining what those rights are/should be? I don’t know about you, but I really don’t trust them with my liberty that much. Perhaps you do.

            But wherever you believe these rights come from there must be among them certain rights that are universal, rights that we can all agree on, wouldn’t you think? Would you agree that self-defense is among those rights? Do we or do we not have the right to defend ourselves when attacked? It’s a simple question and shouldn’t require a great deal of thought. What do you say, my liberal friends? OK, if we all agree that we have a right to self-defense, then the question becomes, “Do we have a right to possess the tools necessary to provide for that defense? I mean lets face it, not everyone out there is a Bruce Lee. If you are attacked by a man with a gun, would you be able to jump kick the gun out of his hand, catch it as it comes to earth, and with one swift movement disassemble the gun rendering it useless, before pummeling the bad guy about the head and shoulders with your fists or fury? No? Well, why not? You seem to think that everyone else has that ability. How else to explain your desire to see more of us disarmed?

            Tools, like a hammer, a screwdriver, a baseball bat, can be used for good, like building a house or hitting a homerun. However, those same tools can be used for evil purposes as well. A hammer can be used to bludgeon someone about the head, crushing their skull. A screwdriver can be used as a stiletto to stab someone to death. A baseball bat can be used by a Union member to break the kneecaps of a replacement worker. It all depends on what is in the heart of the person wielding it. The same is true for guns of various types. You can lay a loaded handgun or even an AR-15 on your kitchen table and you can yell at it, curse it, beg it, plead with it, cajole it, offer it money, it matters not. That gun will not fire until you or someone else picks it up, points it at a target, and pulls the trigger. Whether that target is a bottle sitting on a fence rail or another human being is entirely in the heart and mind of the person holding the gun.

            Now then, perhaps you care not at all about our right to self-defense when it comes to one human vs. another. If attacked you expect us all to channel Bruce Lee and render our attacker hors de combat with our mere physical prowess. I wish it were that simple. The fact is not everyone is as physically capable of defending themselves as you are. Perhaps you think that the 5’4” 105 lb. Female being dragged into an alley to be raped can simply beat up the 6’2” 230 lb. man who is dragging her? I doubt it. But, what she can do is exert 5-7 pounds of trigger pull on the legally purchased handgun that she has trained with and stop that thug from raping her. Or perhaps you’re Ok with her being raped, as long as she doesn’t shoot someone. Please, if you have a better alternative I would love to hear it. I may have overlooked something.

            But, Floyd, you say, if you are attacked you should call the police, that’s what they are for. Certainly the police do play a role - Yes they do, that of cleaning up and investigating after the crime has been committed. The police were called to Sandy Hook Elementary School and they arrived, as the news reports pointed out ad naseum, heavily armed. Hmm, heavily armed. Imagine that, even the police see the need to be armed to deal with violent criminals and madmen. But let’s explore your assertion. The police are our protectors; it is their job, their responsibility to protect us when we are attacked, right? Of course all of this assumes that there are enough police officers to be everywhere all the time whenever they are needed. The police arriving at Sandy Hook, with all of their guns, got there AFTER 27 women and children were killed. Explain to me again how calling the police is the answer. You should also know that the police are not required to protect you as an individual. Please see the appendage at the end of this article for court cases regarding this. So, if you feel comfortable calling the police and waiting until they arrive, while you are being attacked, good luck with that. I wish you all the best.

            I feel I have exhausted the self-defense angle with you. Frankly, if you haven’t gotten it by now then it is likely you never will. But there is another aspect of the gun issue that you are either overlooking or perhaps you, again, just don’t care about. 235 years ago we fought a war to win our freedom from a tyrant. His name was King George III. The nation he ruled was Great Britain and our original 13 colonies were part of his British Empire. I won’t go into the entire history lesson of our grievances against the throne at that time, you’ll just have to do some homework for yourself, but I will give a brief look into the reasons for our right to bear arms, as stated in the Second Amendment.

            The colonies, especially those firebrands in Massachusetts, had, for years, been expressing their grievances to the King and Parliament in the hope of being treated with the same rights and respect that all British subjects felt they were entitled to. The King continued his assault on their rights until the colonies would take no more. Realizing that his subjects were fomenting rebellion, King George sent his troops, under the command of Lt. Col. Francis Smith, into the Massachusetts countryside to the village of Concord. Their mission was to confiscate the arms and powder there, so that they could not be used against the Crown. Well, we all know (or should know) what happened next. The Minutemen of Massachusetts were having none of it and the local militia stood firm for their rights. Sound familiar? Of course you realize that this meant that all of the firearms that would subsequently be used to fight against the British Crown, for our freedom as a nation, were seen by the King/government as “illegal firearms.” That’s right, those pesky colonists did not have a right to own firearms in the King’s eyes. How dare they exert such a right in the face of their government and ruler? Yet a great lesson was learned over the course of that war.

            When time came to draft a new Constitution, to implement a government for a new nation, many demanded, before ratification could take place, that a Bill of Rights be included in that document. This lead to the first ten amendments to our Constitution, which were written specifically to protect our individual rights from an overzealous federal government. But hey, don’t believe me, look it up yourself. There are myriad history books available that cover this subject quite well and in great depth. Among those rights was the Second Amendment, which provides us, as individuals, the right to bear arms. The purpose of that amendment was not to allow us to go hunting for deer, it was not to allow us the means of protecting ourselves from car-jackers, although it certainly serves that purpose, it was to allow the citizens of these United States to fight back against any government that would seek to usurp their rights. That’s right – fight back against the government! Again, don’t believe me? Fine, look it up. Read the writings of our Founding Fathers, read the Declaration of Independence, read the Constitution, and try to deny that I am right. Oh, I know you’ll try, but I am confident that my comprehension skills have proven quite effective over the years of study I have done on the subject.

            In wrapping this up I would simply remind you that you have a right to self-defense, even if you, as a liberal, choose to ignore it. That right entails allowing you to have the tools for protection at your disposal. The Second Amendment of the Constitution is your gun permit and states that you, as an individual, have the right to possess a gun of your choosing. We know that the Second Amendment was put in place to allow us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. We have learned that the police, whom you think are your protectors, are in fact under no obligation to protect you. An undeniable fact of life is that there are evil people among us who wish to do us harm, the reasons why matter not. The only people at the scene of a crime, while it is happening, are the perpetrator and his/her victim(s), the police have not arrived yet. I prefer that people not be disarmed, helpless victims, but instead are able to protect themselves and others if the need arises. After reading this and spending some time in further contemplation I hope that you will agree.

            In the meantime, remember that you have no monopoly on love and caring for your fellow man. We gun owners share your anger and frustration and feel nothing but compassion for the families who are suffering in Newtown. I do not want to see more murders of helpless victims anymore than you do and I feel the best way to prevent another massacre of such scope is to recognize the need to allow those who wish to be armed to do so. Remember, I am not your enemy, I did not kill those children, I want to stop another such atrocity as much as you do, but lets make sure we do it the right way and not allow emotions to overpower critical thinking. I hope you agree.


Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.