Posted on 10/09/2005 12:28:22 PM PDT by skyman
I have just seen the finest documentary ever made about the right to self-defense with firearms.
It was produced by my friend and colleague Larry Elder, a WorldNetDaily columnist and an outstanding Los Angeles radio talk-show host.
It's called "Michael & Me," and, as you might imagine, it emulates the style of Michael Moore's documentaries and turns the tables on the filmmaker responsible for "Bowling for Columbine."
This time it's Moore who is hunted down for an ambush interview the way he famously stalked Roger Smith, the chief executive officer of General Motors, in "Roger & Me," and an ailing Charlton Heston in "Columbine."
This time it's Elder scoring all the propaganda points – with the truth and facts, rather than distortions and cinematic gimmicks.
Heretofore, I have known Elder as an author, a columnist and a radio talker. I was simply not aware of his considerable skills as a documentary filmmaker. This DVD has it all – entertainment value, vital information, a distinctly American point of view.
I simply cannot recommend it highly enough.
This is a documentary that needs a wide audience. I implore you to buy it and share it with your friends and family members. I urge you to spread the word about this magical movie. It is one of those works or art that can change the culture on the gun issue.
Elder makes the compelling case that guns save lives. He doesn't just do it with statistics that no one can deny. He does it with real stories of survivors. He does it with interviews from experts. He does it with the confused thinking of people like Moore, who is, ultimately, ambushed for an interview by Elder.
This documentary leaves no stone unturned in exploring the issue of firearms and self-defense. It covers all the bases. If this is your issue, you will love this movie. If it's not, you will still love this movie and it will become your issue.
The gun-control crowd argues that the Second Amendment either doesn't mean what it says or that it has become an anachronism in the modern age because we have the government to protect us from enemies and the police force to protect us from criminals.
As someone who trusts government about as much as I trust criminals, I never had much use for that argument. And while I generally think most local policemen are good people, the truth is, they just can't be relied upon to protect you.
If you doubt what I'm saying, check out the case law in our nation's capital.
In 1981, the court there held in Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981) that neither the city nor police officials could be held liable for failure of police to respond properly to a request from victims for protection from attackers.
Listen to the facts of this incredible case: A call came in to the police on the 911 emergency hotline reporting a burglary in progress. The police department employee who received the call assured the caller that assistance would be dispatched promptly. However, the dispatcher delayed assigning the call and gave it a lower priority than "crime in progress" calls were supposed to receive.
That was bad enough. But it gets worse. When police officers finally arrived at the scene of the burglary, they failed to make a thorough check of the building and left without discovering the two burglars, who by this time had raped a 4-year-old girl and forced her mother to commit sodomy.
The victims' neighbors, two women who lived upstairs, made a second 911 call, again receiving assurance that help was on the way. No help ever arrived. For the next 14 hours, the intruders held all the occupants of the building captive, including the two women who lived upstairs – they were all raped, robbed, beaten and subjected to numerous sexual indignities.
Despite all this abuse and ineptitude, the court held that neither the assurance of assistance nor the fact that the police had begun to act gave rise to a special relationship between the police and the victims. "[T]he desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specific persons arises." Because the complaint did not allege a relationship "beyond that found in general police responses to crimes," this court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.
In other words, the police aren't there to protect average citizens. It happens sometimes. There are brave police officers who put their lives on the line for strangers. They are to be applauded. But that is not the everyday occurrence you might imagine. Most police work occurs after the fact. Most responses are post-victimization. And, frankly, most of my contact with police these days occurs after I see red lights flashing in my rearview mirror.
I suspect that's true for most people.
None of that matters to the gun-control crowd.
In their view, only important people like politicians, celebrities and the rich deserve armed protection. But as Robert Heinlein put it, "When only cops have guns, it's called a 'police state.'"
Do we really believe we are wiser than the great men who founded this country? Do we really believe they enshrined in the Second Amendment the right to bear arms because they wanted to protect the rights of hunters? Are we ready, in spite of all we know about the basic nature and character of government, to entrust our basic freedoms to the state and its armed agents?
For those who are, let me make a suggestion. Why don't you set an example for the rest of us and print up signs for your homes that say: "This is a firearm-free zone." This would represent a real service to the country. We can experiment to see if their thesis is correct. Does a reduction in firearms translate to a reduction in violence? This will be the test case.
I say, go for it. After all, what do you have to worry about? You've got the police and the government to protect you.
But, before you take my advice, see Larry Elder's "Michael & Me."
I think the whole case for guns saving lives can be made by the simple fact that pretty much any and all law enforcement officers within the United States carry firearms. Training is the only thing that distinguishes these officers from your average joe.
You'd be amazed how many times I hear anti gunners throw out that last tidbit...."the police will protect us". I ask them if they own a fire exstinquisher & the answer is almost always "why, yes. Of course". I then ask, well, isn't that why we have the fire dept??
The conversation usually ends right then & there. Apparently, facts are only to be used against the owning of guns.
And, the average joe gun owner usually shoots his guns more often than most PO.
The conversation usually ends right then & there.
Great retort, Pup!
And, the average joe gun owner usually shoots his guns more often than most PO.
you got that right...
Double Ditto.
And has a higher IQ.
I am a police officer in NW Indiana. On more than one occasion I have recommended victims of crimes buy a gun for their homes and learn how to use it. I don't know if anyone has taken my advice yet or not.
"I ask them if they own a fire exstinquisher"
Good question. I'll remember that one.
Present company exempted, of course.
I go to the range twice a week.
Rotators, pistols and shot guns. Buy ammo by the case.
I wish we had officers like you here in California.
"On more than one occasion I have recommended victims of crimes buy a gun for their homes and learn how to use it."
It's often been said that big men are the gentlest, since no one dares pick a fight with them.
And, there are people in the world whose respect of basic human dignity only starts with a knowledge that they can get their butt kicked (or shot) if they don't respect those rights.
I asked him..."everytime you get in the car you put on your seatbelt. Are you afraid you're going to get in an accident?"
He immediately got the point.
Small women, like my wife, have no defense against most men except for a weapon. A .357 would be excellent protection against any size man. But she is like many other Americans who have been conditioned to believe that guns are evil and that the police will arrive in the nick of time. I'm trying very hard to persuade her that protection begins with the individual.
My Brooklyn,NY wife as well.Her brother was even shot as a teenager, in the leg, and was totally anti gun. To her credit, she thought if she was going to hate guns, she should first learn about them and actually TRY shooting.
Long story short.....she now has a CCW and just purchased her first carry gun this summer.Keep working on your wife......she'll come around.
When we had a dinner party and people wanted a tour of the house, a woman walked into my bathroom and let out a shreek.
She said "Those things are eeeevil." My response was, "Teddy Kennedy has killed more people than I have." After a pause, I said, "Would you like to step into my office?"
She'd go bat-sh!t if she saw my hangun collection!
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.