Posted on 09/06/2005 11:52:50 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Some of the most heartening tales coming out of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are the tales of Americans standing up and taking responsibility for their own safety and survival rather than whining about “the government” not taking care of them.
The Washington Post reports that in Popps Ferry Landing, a neighborhood near Biloxi, Mississippi, the local neighborhood watch is keeping an armed night watch to prevent looters from invading the neighborhood. Following the looting of the local Dollar Store, neighbors who very rarely spoke to each other, got together to protect their own. They’re not going out hunting down anyone; they’re just camping out at their houses with their constitutionally protected firearms preventing the roving bands of criminals from destroying their peaceful middle class neighborhood.
It is times such as these, for which the Second Amendment is so important. In the aftermath of the greatest natural disaster in the history of this nation, it is the citizen himself that must stand in the breach of the wall of civilization, created by the storm and the consequent disorganization and lack of police presence, to protect himself from the anarchy which reigns in the world outside. These are the minute men of the 21st Century. These are ordinary middle class men, plumbers, engineers, managers, carpenters, and salesmen who have gotten out of their easy chairs and off their sofas, gone out into their neighborhood and introduced themselves to their neighbors. They have, in this time of danger decided, not to wait around to become a victim and then whine about why our government hasn’t done something to protect them, but to take responsibility for their own safety. Our Founding Fathers would not be proud of these men they would merely nod their heads in acknowledgement of men doing what should be expected of them.
It is precisely this for which the Second Amendment was designed. I know it’s difficult for Liberals to understand, but as we are seeing currently, we can’t always depend on the police. The Second Amendment is not, much to the chagrin of Liberals like Michael Moore, Al Gore, and John Kerry, about a person’s right to hunt; it is about the American citizen’s right to feel safe in their own residence. This fact which so sadly escaped the two last Democrat candidates for President is what made the images of John Kerry traipsing around in borrowed jacket with borrowed gun attempting to look like a hunter so hysterical to the gun owners of America. The N.R.A. is not about arming criminals like Michael Moore has inappropriately and inaccurately tried to portray in his crassly exploitive movie “Bowling for Columbine,” it is about educating the American citizen on the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership, the proper use and care of those firearms, and the protection, from those who would usurp those rights under the misapprehension that a gun-free state is a safe state, of those rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
It is true that guns are designed for the purpose of killing. They are the most efficient form of killing that the average citizen has available to them. They are also the most effective form of self defense the average citizen has available to them. In their absence, individuals, men, women, and children are at greater risk. To an unarmed man, alone on a road or in his house, a group of four or five (or even a couple) burly men intent on evil represent a real life threatening situation; to an armed man, or women, properly trained in the use of firearms, they become a manageable threat. In a society in which the criminal frequently has more rights than the victim, being armed should be, as the Second Amendment intends, an untouchable right. Carrying a firearm, whether concealed of openly, should not only be allowed, it should be encouraged. The fact of the matter is, the better armed the citizens of a community, the lower the crime rate, particularly the violent crime rate, of that community. Those cities like Washington D.C., New York, and possibly soon to be San Francisco, have the highest per capita violent crime rate in the nation.
As can be seen in the Popps Landing example, total dependence upon government agencies for our safety can quickly turn into a liability, if those agencies are overwhelmed by circumstances beyond anyone’s control. At a time when police response to emergency calls can be five to ten minutes (if not much longer) it is ludicrous for the American people to be forced to rely on the government for their protection, as the anti-gun lobby would have us do. That is a real path to the imprisonment of the average citizen inside their houses. In Britain, certainly there is a lower murder rate than in the U.S.A., but the overall violent crime rate is considerably higher than in America. Groups like Handgun Control International, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, and Common Cause would have Americans surrender their rights to self-defense for the illusory concept of complete safety. There is no such thing as complete safety, and a person can be as easily and more surely killed by a knife as a gun. It has been stated by the Second Amendment lobbying groups so often as to become a trite saying, “if guns are outlawed; only outlaws will have guns.” Trite maybe, but also true, so true that it becomes a profound statement of universal truth. By definition, an outlaw, a law breaker, a criminal, does not care whether or not he is breaking the law by carrying a firearm. If a person has criminal intent, he will find a means to implement it.
These people, people of the left like Mr. Moore, are the same people who would have had us unilaterally disarm during the cold war in the face of a growing Soviet Nuclear threat. President Reagan, proved how mistaken the unilateralist’s position was by presiding over the first stages of the complete dismantlement of the Soviet Union. Unilateral disarmament in the face of a known threat is an invitation to victim hood. It is only by show of strength that threat can be countered. This is not some new “off-the-wall” concept, this is human nature at its very core. The anti-gun forces exhibit the same Pollyannaish naiveté of human nature that the Marxists do. There are and always will be predators in our society. It is the human nature of some to covet more than their “fair share.” The entire concept of “fair share” is faulty thinking based on the mistaken concept that material wealth is a zero sum game. It is also human nature for some in our society to desire that for which they are not willing to work. They are the predators which must be confronted in everyday life. If relying on the police was a successful concept, there would be no crime. No one would have to lock their door and a woman walking downtown after dark by herself would neither be uncommon nor foolish. Since not even the most rabid Liberal in society would consider that situation reasonable behavior, the basic premise of their arguments against guns is false. I dare say that Sarah Brady would not feel comfortable walking the dark alley ways of D.C. even though there are extremely strong anti-gun laws in place there.
There are no reasonable arguments in favor of gun control, only emotional ones. That is why one so often hears bogus statistics coming out of the anti-gun lobbyists. Thankfully, most Americans understand this concept and reject the irrational policies recommended by the gun haters. You will also hear them claim that they are not anti-gun, rather that they are only seeking to impose “reasonable” restraints on gun ownership. This is an evolutionary principle for them brought about through their numerous defeats, by gun owners, in their legislative endeavors. You will often hear them use the phrase “I am a hunter myself...” or “We’re not talking about taking away a hunter’s guns...” invariably followed by the word “but.” They then will use the phrase, “reasonable people,” or “reasonable restrictions,” so as to make it clear that only an “unreasonable” person would object to their efforts to restrict gun ownership.
In a society of law-abiding citizens, we have nothing to fear from an unrestricted right to gun ownership. Law-abiding citizens are by definition going to obey the law. By restricting their “right to keep and bare arms,” we only encourage law breaking by those same citizens. Laws are intended to preserve freedoms, not restrict them. In committing a crime, someone is infringing on the rights and freedoms of another. In an armed society, those who would seek to impose their will on another are significantly less inclined to do so. It is for that reason, that the citizens of Popps Ferry Landing will not have to worry about having their property destroyed or stolen, their families killed or injured by marauding bands of criminals. And the authorities will not be additionally burdened in the exercising of their duties responding to this crisis.
An armed citizenry is a safe and fearless citizenry.
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen!
Guns Save Lives!
No Guns, No Rights!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For!
I checked your bio page - Apparently you don't! :-)
MOA = "minute of angle"
every angular degree is composed of 60 angular minutes.
every angular minute is composed of 60 angular seconds.
at 100 yards, one MOA = .86inch
this means that the "circular probability of impact" for a "minute-of-angle gun" has a radius of .86" centered on the point of aim.
Sweet gun!!!!
thanks. it IS :)
Amen.
Man, I guess you haven't a clue about how it was done in Britain.
"We have a different perspective on guns in Canada, where I live anyway."
No kidding. Unfortunately, I'm a history major, and every country I've studied, clear back into ancient history, that has disarmed the citizens has become despotic, and usually crashed and burned when the people can't defend themselves when the barbarians show up, or from their own government, either. People in this country have been trying to get everyone to register their guns since I was in high school, at least. That is precisely the first step in disarming them, as demonstrated, like I said before, by the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. I'm not on for making that mistake here. Not to mention that our founders set up our government to prevent such things. See what Thomas Jefferson said about personal ownership of firearms, and tell me anything like registration would be legal?
Also, look at New York's "success" with their Sullivan Act.
"There are no reasonable arguments in favor of gun control".
Heck there aren't!!! Gun control is necessary to make sure you put holes only in those things that you intend to put holes in. Gotta have lots of gun control for that. If you're agreeing that there is no legitimate reason for disarming the citizens of the United States, from whom the government derives its legitimate powers, you're absolutly right. Amen, indeed.
"well since this turned into a gun porn thread..."
My brother and I took my youngest daughter to the local gun shop with us one day for sightseeing (they have the most amazing floor decorations: animal tracks, fish skeletons, a small alligator, etc, embossed in the concrete).
She looked at all the guns in the shop, and said "Daddy, I want that one..." while pointing to the engraved and cased presentation colt with the $20k price tag. That's my girl. Most expensive piece in the store.
Oh, did I forget to mention that we fought England precisely because governments can become tyranical? The UK may have mellowed out some, since then, but they've also started to swing back in that direction, again, too. I'm glad the Brits are on our side in Iraq, but when a farmer can defend himself against burgalars who've repeatedly hit his place, and wind up in jail, they're losing sight of what it is supposed to mean to be an Englishman. Subjects, not citizens.
"I would expect to see a similar pattern emerge if this ever started in the US."
I think you're missing the point. They have been trying this in the US for more than 30 years. Way more, in fact, as the Sullivan Act is from the 1890's, IIRC. If Canada is ready to give up so quickly, it just means some of your people are faster learners than some of ours, but I wouldn't bet on your liberals being done with it. You'll need to keep a close eye on them. I don't believe Canada has a Constitutional guarantee of right to keep and bear arms, as we do. Truthfully, I have never read your Constitution, if you have one. I know that the English constitution is not just one document, like ours is. I've read the Magna Carta, and the 1689 Bill of Rights, but I don't know that they haven't been superceded by later documents. I know that Englishmen HAD such a right, but as far as I can tell, they've lost it. I don't intend to see that happen here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.