Oleg Volk has produced hundreds of high quality photos like these. They are on his website "Self Defense is a Basic Human Right" in both medium and high resolution versions.
Posted on 08/04/2007 10:30:58 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why? There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.
Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're out" law in this state? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."
Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It's been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.
Can't we better monitor the probation process?
Can't we do a better job of predicting -- figuring out which non-violent criminals are about to turn violent?
Are home alarms really effective?
How about dogs?
But somehow all of these ideas pale before the barbarity of this particular crime.
That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?
Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.
Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?
Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.
Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?
I think the answer is yes.
And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.
I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.
Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?
And whereas the reform of the criminal justice system along some of the lines suggested above (a real "three strikes" law and faster trials for violent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, and Hayley, and Michaela Petit, a gun might have.
I don't say it would have.
I say it might have.
Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes.
Moreover, the three victims here were women.
What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money?
It's worth thinking about.
Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.
And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.
A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."
They are.
And they are right.
Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.
No one should have a gun who has not been trained.
Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National Rifle Association maintains an extensive national network of programs in firearms training and education.)
And, obviously, no one would be forced to own a gun.
A second caveat: Encouraging citizens to arm themselves is no "answer" to crimes like the Petit murders.
An "answer" does not exist.
But it is one of several remedies when we are faced with palpable evil.
All possible remedies should be on the table:
-- Various reforms of the justice system, like a real three-strike-law for predatory offenders.
-- Better psychological treatment for troubled youth.
-- Religious training, in both love and self-restraint, especially when people are young.
-- Prison programs that both retain the hard core and educate the educable.
-- More and better home alarm systems.
-- More cops visible in more neighborhoods.
-- Dobermans.
All of these approaches have merit.
So does self-defense.
None of these options "fix" a society that can produce human beings who torture and kill the defenseless for sport.
No one step or program can plug every hole in America's justice system, or its soul.
But there are times when a gun in the hands of a potential victim may save a life.
Let's admit -- since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns -- that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit.
--------
Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.
So do we, although it isn't nearly as much as we want to.
If more people were killed by drills or pencils the nanny's would be trying to ban them too.
I'm going to risk a disagreement with you here. More people are killed by back yard swimming pools and automobiles than by firearms but you don't see the libs trying to ban them.
They want to ban our guns because they know they're the final 'reset' button on our Government.
It's far easier to rule disarmed peasants after all.
L
Another one comes down from the clouds to earth.
These men claim that 'We, -as a society', decide which rights we will protect --- And if 'We' choose not to protect your right to [drugs, guns, - whatever], so be it. They argue that if and when a majority of the people decide that we should protect a right, then we will; given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.
--- For instance, if there's nothing in a state constitution about the right to keep and bear arms [and States can change their constitutions by super-majority decisions], - then --- States can ban all guns if they so chose.
My dry sense of humor doesn’t translate well electronically.
One is either a citizen or a slave. Being able to utilize a God given right is only in the preview of a citizen.
With the restoration of the 2nd Amendment there also needs to be a systematic effort among the people to restore the “gun culture”, that is, knowledge about guns as tools, along with their proper use and maintenance.
There are popular shows on TV about how to properly use tools of all sorts. This is because just about any tool will cause accidents if not properly used.
From personal experience, I have seen a lot of people who shouldn’t touch a loaded weapon, or really, weapons of any sort to include swords, knives, blunt objects, etc., without safety training. They just don’t have an inherent grasp of safety for either themselves or anyone around them. Often they are aware of this themselves and so wisely seek training whenever they use a new tool or weapon.
The NRA provides a LOT of education to ordinary people who need it, but with everything it does, it is dwarfed by the need for gun culture education.
The one thing this doesn’t need, however, is government involving itself in the process.
I see one low cost possibility that would probably do a world of good: for gun manufacturers to include a DVD with the sale of their gun. A video of everything you ever wanted to know about general gun safety, use and maintenance of that particular weapon.
Such a 25 cent DVD could accomplish a world of good for both the gun users and the manufacturers. A wealth of information, with all sorts of mutual benefits. The gun maker would be able to put in advertisements for accessories specific to that gun and unrelated products. A description of applicable federal and State laws, which would be very useful to gun buyers, as these laws are confusing at best.
Every State has some gun restrictions, and of lot of them can be very strange. To know what they are ahead of time can avoid lots of grief.
Few guns out there are really maintained as well as they should be. Other things included in the video might be about online warranty registration, information about target ranges and gun organizations in the area, how to properly secure and safely store weapons and ammunition.
Such consumer knowledge also strongly benefits manufacturers, for when they sell a product, they want it to be used. If it is locked up and forgotten because the user never familiarized himself with it, its value is only as a future antique. If, however, the gun owner uses it, takes care of it, and is comfortable with it, not only is there a strong possibility of brand loyalty, but of the purchase of additional products, and sooner rather than later.
The consumer will also quite possibly interest his family and friends in that particular weapon, knowledgeably “selling” that particular kind to them.
Manufacturers can also build customer loyalty by offering online updates to the information available on the DVD, along with advertisements and useful information about where their guns can be purchased and maintained.
Well said, sir.
With any luck Clan Lurker will make it down your way for one of those now legendary Memorial Shoots. I'd be mighty proud to shake your hand and heat up a few barrels with you and yours.
Of course, if you pull out a Garand I just may move down a few lanes...
Nothing personal.
L
The second amendment was designed to protect the liberty of the individual over the barbarity of the state.
With the second amendment in place, that midnight knock on the door will never happen.
1) In what shape was the shooter after this incident?
2) Do my eyes deceive me -- or is that a reloader's paradise under that bench?
Outstanding article! Wonder how we could get gun-hating liberals to read it...?
We would all consider it an honor if you can make it!
I am pinging TheMom as she runs the Memorial Shoot ping list. Let her know if you want on.
Take care,
Tom Eaker
You know, sarcasm isn't funny if you have to EXPLAIN that it was sarcasm.
I was fine later. See post# 41.
2) Do my eyes deceive me -- or is that a reloader's paradise under that bench?
This range doesn't allow the collection of brass as they sell it for scrap.
Is it currently illegal for citizens of Ct. to own and possess firearms?
“Gun Culture” won’t mean a hill of beans without teaching our young people what independence means, how to live that way, and when they have to kill those who seek to take it away.
Lurker is already on the Memorial Shoot ping list.
It would be awesome if your clan can make it.
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can”
Samuel Adams
I don't recall the entire story, but it had something to do with a tight chamber, forcing the op rod into battery - something like that.
No tightness nor forcing of anything. Thirteenth bullet was placed in the chamber, same as the previous twelve. The bolt was properly engaged and no finger was on the trigger. As the gun was being brought up to the shoulder it went KA-BOOM!
Oleg Volk has produced hundreds of high quality photos like these. They are on his website "Self Defense is a Basic Human Right" in both medium and high resolution versions.
Very well and succinctly put!
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.