If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him. . . . (Ex. 22:2-3)
At the heart of the debate over gun control is the issue of self-defense. Citizens may desire gun ownership for hunting and recreation, but the primary reason for owning a gun is self-defense against criminals and a tyrannical government.
Therefore, any biblical text that deals with the right of self-defense is central to determining the right of gun ownership under God’s law. Perhaps the most crucial text to address the right of self-defense is Exodus 22:2-3.
This Scripture appears in that portion of the Pentateuch known as “The Book of the Covenant” (Ex. 21-23). The Book of the Covenant follows the declaration of the Ten Commandments, and provides a concrete application of the principles of truth and justice contained in the Ten Commandments by means of “statutes and judgments.”
The context of Exodus 21:2-3 is dealing with theft and restitution. Within this discussion of theft, the case of a thief breaking in is presented. In this case law two scenarios are given.
In the first scenario, a thief is “found breaking up,” that is, breaking in by breaking up the roof, a window, or a door during the night hours. Thus we have a forced entry into the house (or property) that is discoverd by the owner. The owner responds to this alarming and threatening situation (for in the dark of night he knows not the intent, identity, or arms of the intruder) by killing the robber, presumably with some sort of weapon. The declaration of God’s law is that in these circumstances the owner is innocent of any wrongdoing, and is fully justified in using lethal force to defend himself and his family.
The second instance involves a thief “breaking up” under different circumstances. In this case, it is during the daylight hours, and presumably, the owner can identify the intentions of the intruder and see that he is unarmed and poses no threat to life or limb, but is a mere thief. Yet, in spite of this the owner kills the thief. In these circumstances the owner who uses lethal force is guilty of a crime. This was not an act of self-defense (for he was not attacked or threatened) but an act of brutality against an unarmed man whose only intention was the theft of property. The penalty for theft was restitution, not death. Thus, this is a case of the unauthorized taking of human life, and is, therefore, murder, punishable by death. God’s law authorizes the protection of life by deadly force if necessary, but His law does not permit the defense of property in the same manner.
It is important to note that the case presented here of a thief breaking in involves the shedding of blood. Therefore, this case law is an application of the righteousness of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Consequently, the biblical law of self-defense empowers us to defend our lives against wicked men who hate God, His law, and the life of their neighbor. We may assume that those who threaten us with bodily harm or weapons hold the life God has given us in contempt, and, therefore, we may defend ourselves against such evil even to the point of killing our assailant.
In conclusion, let us consider the implications of Exodus 22:2-3 for the right of self-defense.
1. This case law establishes the righteousness of self-defense. God’s law permits a man to defend himself and his family. This defense may require the use of deadly force, and this certainly implies the use of weapons.
2. If a man is not guilty of any crime for slaying an intruder on the mere supposition that he may be armed or pose a threat to him or his family, how much more does the law of God authorize self-defense against an armed assailant who definitely threatens bodily harm. A man is justified in defending himself whenever he is attacked or his life endangered.
3. The primary responsibility for defense against violent attacks is a personal responsibility. The defense of one’s life and one’s family is chiefly an individual responsibility, not a community or governmental responsibility. (There is no indication that Israel had a standing police force or army. The armed men of Israel, under the direction of their magistrates, were the army and police force.) There is certainly a need to love our neighbor and come to his defense if we can. But the first line of defense against violence and aggression is the man who is prepared to use whatever force necessary in the protection of his own life and those for whom he is responsible (e. g., his family). This, of course, means that he must be armed to meet all possible threats to his life. Today, this requires a citizen to be armed with guns.
4. Any weapon is permissable for use in self-defense. This case law does not say the owner is guilty if he uses a sword, but not guilty if he uses a club. The issue is not one of weapons, but the right of self-defense. God’s law does not make an arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable weapons for self-defense. And there are no biblical laws restricting the access of citizens to weapons necessary for self-defense. To limit a citizen’s access to lethal weapons (e.g., guns) is to limit his ability for self-defense. Gun control is self-defense control. Who would want to control and limit the individual’s ability to defend himself except thugs and tyrants?
5. This case law would be a great deterrence to criminals. After all, citizens are armed and authorized to kill, if necessary, intruders and attackers!
6. This case law also restrains the individual in the use of weapons in self-defense. He must be very careful, lest he use deadly force when it is not called for. If he does, he pays with his own life.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/24677/the-bible-guns-and-self-defense/#5wpyz76O3yk5wOJe.99

Fraudulent study in the American Journal of Public Health inaccurately claims that states with more guns have more police deaths

AJPH heading for this paper

The end of last week a study in the American Journal of Public Health claimed that there were more police feloniously killed in states that had more guns. The study got extensive news coverage at the TV networks such as NBC News, newspapers such as the Chicago Sun-Times,  and international coverage such the UK Guardian.  Yet, it took just a couple of minutes to read the paper and realize that the empirical work was done in a very non-standard way.  There is a big benefit to using so-called panel data, where you can more accurately account for differences in crime rates across states or over time.  This method is called “fixed effects.”   Strangely the authors, David Swedler, Molly M. Simmons, Francesca Dominici, and David Hemenway, only control for the differences across states and not over time.

A couple of simple examples show why other studies on crime take into account these factors

Take the differences across places.  Many people point out that the UK has both a lower gun ownership rate and a lower homicide rate than the US.  Some use this to claim that gun control causes crime rates to fall.  But the homicide rate actually went up by 50 percent in the eight years after the 1997 handgun ban went into effect.  The homicide rate was still lower than that in the US, but there were lots of reasons it was lower to begin with, not the handgun ban.

The same point applies over time.  Suppose a state passes a gun control law at the same time that crime rates are falling nationally.  It would be a mistake to attribute the overall drop in national crime rates to the law that got passed.  To account for that concern, researchers normally see whether the drop in crime rate for the state that had the change is greater or less than the overall national change.

Unfortunately, the American Journal of Public Health study doesn’t account for this last concern, and it makes a big huge.  Here is a simple version of their regression explaining the number of police officers feloniously killed over the years from 1996 to 2013, but without accounting for the time effects that we just discussed.  Before going through the results, the media coverage of this study is incorrect in claiming that more guns are associated with more police killings.  What the journal article actually measures is not the gun ownership, but the percentage of suicides committed with guns (fsdsuicides).  This regression looks at the total number of police feloniously murdered with their measure of “gun ownership” and the number of police officers.  In this regression it appears that a one percentage point increase in the percent of suicides committed with guns increase, there is a significant 1.8 percent increase in the total number of police killed.

Just accounting for the changes in crime rates over time, completely reverses the claims made in the American Journal of Public Health.  It now appears that a one percentage point increase in the percent of suicides committed with guns increase, there is a significant 2.25 percent decrease in the total number of police killed.  For statistical data go to The Crime Prevention Research Center. Crimeresearch.org

In case you have not seen it, a blogger named Dean Garrison wrote a terrific article on what responsibilities we have as patriotic Americans who actually support and defend the Constitution upon which we are founded. His article has gone viral and we hope it goes further.

In addition to the article, we want to add some understanding to further bolster his well written and clear thinking piece. The addition concerns wording in the second amendment that most people today do not fully understand. When reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is important to understand that our language has changed. Therefore, we must understand what the founders meant when they used the word ‘well-regulated’.

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. – Brian T. Halonen

Adversaries who propose to ban or confiscate our guns clearly try to read new meaning into old words, or tell us that the Constitution is an old document that needs to be revised due to age; they are devoid of reason and understanding and certainly are not living up to their oaths of office.

There is no definition of being armed in the Constitution, but it is clear why – tyranny of the masses or government must be prevented and defended against, by weapons that are ‘well-regulated’ meaning they work well and the owner is adept in their use. Reading new verbiage or intent into those words is just flat wrong. Words have meaning – learn the meaning before lashing out against it. The founders intended the citizenry to defend the country if needed, with arms that could effectively meet these ends.

Therefore, any discussion of “reasonable restrictions” must be placed on those who wish to restrict, not on those who are law-abiding citizens whose inalienable right to defend oneself against all enemies, foreign and domestic, exists regardless of any government. It was in force through all of time and it is the responsibility as outlined by our founders that government protect this unalienable right – not remove it.

(The author of the article has given permission to all to disseminate this piece with proper attribution, please make sure it is cited back to the original post.)

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

By Dean Garrison – D.C. Clothesline

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

– The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

– Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

– The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

 

When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.

Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.

It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.

I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/lets-stick-to-the-facts-when-discussing-gun-control.html/

The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but what they don’t mention is that this deregulation was designed to benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party. Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich.

In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo’s “Daily Ticker,” entitled “Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People.”

Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their attempts to influence the populace.

Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare and that this view diminishes the “need” for 2ndAmendment protections. He goes on to proclaim:

“In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’ kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but who aren’t actually bad guys…”

Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case had already been decided and that Trayvon was found not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball?

Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very poorly with several unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous (overzealous) in their cause that they feel no regret in spouting baseless conclusions with the presumption that their audience will never question their logic.

Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the “rarity” of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen who held a gun on a reserve police officer and high school basketball coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense. Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event. For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do. According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store).

Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I’m just coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye.

The fact that he uses this particular instance of gun defense was, of course, strategic. A teen died, and both the attacker and the defender were armed with guns. He means us to see the event as a tragedy caused by the very existence of civilian firearms ownership. Blodget somehow overlooks the thousands upon thousands of other self defense stories out there in which gun ownership saved lives…

What about the story of student Chris Boise, who used an AR-15 to ward off two armed assailants breaking into his apartment. The criminals ran at the sight of his weapon:

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx

What about an Atlanta mother of 9-year-old twins who shot and killed an assailant with a previous record of battery breaking into her home. A police officer on scene after the event noted that “she handled her first shooting better than he did…”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

How about the 1997 incident at a High School in Pearl, Mississippi, in which a 16 year old murdered his mother, then went to school with a rifle and opened fire (sound familiar), shooting several and killing two. The student was subdued by the Vice Principle, who had to run to his care to grab his .45 Colt (Note that when a staff member of a school is armed, the body count of these attacks goes way down):

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html

And why not mention the man who entered a Golden Food Market in Richmond, Virginia opening fire at employees and customers, only to be shot down by a conceal carrying citizen:

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14664/statistics-show-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few

These are just a few of the numerous instances of gun defense across the U.S. that the mainstream media likes to ignore. Blodget had all of these examples at his disposal. He could have written a fair and honest editorial, but he didn’t.

After Blodget presents his carefully picked gun defense story, he then makes these three points:

“First, and most importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a legal gun owner.

The bottom line is that no mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about banning the kind of gun used in this incident…”

To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that the New York SAFE Act model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally.

“…Second, the coach was a trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he was.”

The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement official.

The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a designated state official is given credence by the government and is, therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This naïve sentiment is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired a gun in his life.

“Third, this incident could easily have turned out differently–as many similar incidents do. If the coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone carried guns, it wasn’t always the bad guys that got shot.)”

Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth. Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control their personal fears?

Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim’s chances of survival? Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a victim’s ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he fall to his knees and beg for mercy?

The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense.

By exploiting this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his targets are armed.

Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions. Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget claims that the study is “old and highly flawed because it used a small number of people as a test group”, all common assertions by gun control fanatics. The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago), and surveyed 5000 households.

A recent Reuter/Ipsos poll used widely by gun grabbers claimed that 74% of Americans support an assault weapons ban, yet their survey only involved 559 people with far less oversight than Kleck’s study.

ED NUGENT: Open letter to Joe Biden on guns

‘Gun control’ won’t save lives

The Washington Times

Monday, December 31, 2012

Bottom of Form

Joe,

Congratulations on your appointment to lead a presidential commission to end gun-related violence.

As a National Rifle Association board member, husband, father, grandfather, law enforcement officer and genuinely concerned American, I too want nothing more than to see evil, senseless massacres stopped. I concur with the president and caring people everywhere: It’s time to end these slaughters.

As you gather your team to study massacres and how to stop them, I offer to you my services and a lifetime of expertise on guns in all their implementations. While I strongly differ with President Obama on many issues, I agree with him that we must work with all we can possibly muster to end these tragedies.

As you begin to formulate your thoughts on how to proceed with your task, I hope your starting point is to provide the president with the facts regarding these slaughters and to offer him common-sense recommendations that are void of a political agenda and will actually make a meaningful difference. If the American people smell a political agenda here, that will only bog down our efforts.

In the spirit of goodwill and a deep desire to end gut-wrenching, incredibly sad and senseless rampages, I offer you the following recommendations:

I encourage you to persuade the president to lead this effort by providing a number of public service announcements. The announcements should include watching out for each other, encouraging parents to be more involved in their children’s lives regarding entertainment choices, and knowing various indicators we should watch for in people who are unstable.

Clearly, the focus on solving these mass murders must be on the mentally ill. In almost every instance of mass killing, there were ample red flags and warning alarms that either were avoided or were not acted upon by mental health professionals, family members, friends and acquaintances. While I deeply respect an individual’s privacy and civil liberties, the American people need basic awareness of what indicators to look for regarding potentially violent, psychotic people. Our collective safety begins with being collectively vigilant.

You will find in your assessment that all of the massacres have occurred in gun-free zones. What gun-free zones create is an environment where good people are unarmed and virtually defenseless against an unstable person intent on committing mass murder. Gun-free zones are modern killing fields. I implore you to recommend that Congress pass a law to ban gun-free zones immediately.

Just like your full-time, armed security detail, qualified citizens with authorized, legal concealed-carry permits should be able to carry weapons virtually everywhere to protect themselves, their loved ones and innocents.

I also implore you to strongly consider recommending that trained school officials have access to weapons to protect students. Just as airline pilots may have access to a weapon to prevent another Sept. 11 mass murder, school officials also should be trained to stop shooting sprees at our schools.

I don’t encourage you to recommend a ban on any weapon, magazine capacity or type of ammunition. That won’t accomplish anything other than prevent the 99.9 percent of responsible, law-abiding Americans from enjoying these modern weapons as we do now. We should never recommend or develop public policy that restricts the rights of the good guys based upon what evil people do or might do. If that were the case, alcohol still would be banned. As you may know, drunk drivers kill an estimated 12,000 Americans each year and hurt tens of thousands more.

I encourage you also to keep this misnamed “gun violence” in perspective. While all deaths are tragic, the vast majority of gun-related murders and violence are committed by gang members who do not use guns that look like — but do not perform like — military assault weapons. The majority of crimes that involve a firearm are committed with handguns. I concurred with you back in 2008 when you stated, “If [Mr. Obama] tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.” I trust you still maintain those sentiments.

Again, I offer you my services and a lifetime of expertise. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent is an American rock ‘n’ roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of “Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God, Guns & Rock ‘N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing).
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/31/open-letter-to-joe-biden-on-guns/#ixzz2GmnL5Mt8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Americans who thought the United Nations’ gun-grabbing agenda collapsed with the adjournment of the Small Arms Treaty meetings in July are in for a surprise.

Enter the U.N. Programme Against Small Arms, an administrative program that National Association for Gun Rights Executive Vice President Dudley Brown says wouldn’t require a vote in Congress to be enacted, but has so far flown under the radar of most gun-rights groups.

A U.N. conference called the “Second United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects) that concluded this past week drafted a 2012 report that says the body maintains its commitment eliminate small arms trade, despite the July setback.

“In implementing the Programme of Action at the national level,” the report said, “States, where they have not yet done so, undertake: To support the development and implementation of adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, including diversion of small arms and light weapons to unauthorized recipients.

“To establish or strengthen, as appropriate,” the report continued, “national coordination mechanisms to improve coordination among governmental agencies, in particular among law enforcement, national border and customs control agencies, and arms transfer licensing authorities, to implement the Programme of Action.

“This should include aspects of the illicit manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons,” the report concluded.

The full scope of what the program intends to accomplish are explained on the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs web site.

The site lists the groups the body is hoping to impact: “Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists.”

Further the site says, “The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities and impacts security and development in all regions of the world.”

The website further explains what the program intends to implement in the participating countries.

“If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, this would form an effective measure against illicit trade and diversion,” the website states. “For that purpose, it is essential that the weapon be marked upon production and import, and that appropriate records be kept. Existing stocks should also be marked. Although many weapons are marked upon production and import, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy.”

Brown says the U.N. gun ban is difficult to stop.

“This fight, however, is on such a massive scale,” Brown said in a statement, “with so many moving targets and on so many fronts, that it has been a virtual course in adapting tactics to fit the battle.”

Brown told WND traditional gun-rights groups have thus far dismissed the U.N. program.

“When this fight with the U.N. first surfaced,” Brown said, “the institutional gun lobby dismissed the threat as paranoia, but we knew the U.N.’s agenda put the United States’ freedoms squarely in their sights.”

Brown also says that the U.N.’s target is nothing less than complete control of all guns and ammunition.

“What’s at stake is the entire fate of firearms in America,” Brown said.

And Brown says there’s only one way to stop the U.N. Programme Against Small Arms. It starts with diligent, local lobbying and activism.

“Grassroots activism – led by my organization, the National Association for Gun Rights – derailed the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty,” Brown said. “But now they’re using a more insidious avenue called the Programme Against Small Arms to push for global gun control. And it just might work, unless we mobilize Americans against it.”

I know my name for this segment has been used by an illicit gun operation, but they will never be confused with Sundogger.  Here is another argument destroying the liberal concepts so familiar to all of us.  Sundogger.

On cue, doctors around the country are zeroing in on gun violence. Like every other scientific discipline, medical professionals have been brainwashed to believe that science holds all of the answers to life’s mysteries. Like good empiricists, these doctors are convinced that lab work and statistical data are the best indicators of why sociopaths act sociopathically.

Want to know some of the stunning evidence that they have found? I thought you might. One interesting bit of wisdom is that gun ownership is a precursor to gun violence. Wow. In a nation of gunowners, where it is estimated that the number of guns is between 260-300 million (it is probably even higher than this), it is somehow statistically relevant that gun ownership precedes gun violence. This fact is about as helpful as the fact that car ownership tends to precede auto fatalities, or that home ownership precedes house fire deaths; one does not predict the other. Gun ownership has nothing to do with gun violence. If it did, it would be far more significant of a number and the relationship would be much stronger.

For example, it has been estimated that one-third of American homes have guns (again, the number is probably much higher). The FBI estimates that two-thirds of all homicides are committed with guns, yet only 9% of violent crimes actually involve guns. This is highly significant. A homicide is a violent crime where a death results. This would fall into the 9% category. However, attempted homicide, robberies, carjackings, domestic disputes, gang violence, etc, that involve guns also are a part of that 9%. This means that 89% of violent crime does not involve a gun. In a nation where guns number almost 1:1 of the population, this lack of correlation is much more important than the miniscule relationship where they do seem to correlate.

It should be incredibly surprising to most readers how little guns actually contribute to violent crime despite the outcry from the media and these medical doctors. It’s almost as if more guns discourage gun violence, rather than promote it; and this is precisely what pro-gun and Second Amendment advocates have been saying all along.

Rather than blaming the gun, perhaps doctors should be focusing on the people. Without seeing the data, I can confidently predict that 100% of violent crimes involve people. Of those 100%, every one of them had parents. This seems to be a much stronger predictor than gun ownership: having parents always precedes violent crime. In fact, having parents is a precursor to any kind of crime, not only violent ones. This is the real epidemic. Why can’t these doctors see this as the real problem? Jonathan Swift may have been on to something when he modestly proposed that poor parents should sell their children for food. This would not only reduce hunger, it would stimulate the economy and lower violent crime. It is all very scientific.

Just like Joycelyn Elder’s brilliant pronouncement about needing “safer guns” and “safer bullets,” these doctors are making the wrong connection between guns and violent crime. Guns don’t increase violent crime; they decrease it. The same data that doctors are using to make their case against guns is actually proving the opposite. But, of course, this is because the data is strictly a tool. It’s never been about what is fact and what is not; it’s all about the ideology. Anti-gun activists are not interested in data that doesn’t support their case, so they twist the information instead, making it appear to say something that it most certainly does not. This is neither scientific nor honest. It is nothing but political propaganda, being delivered by a “trusted authority” in a white lab coat. Don’t believe the hype: Guns don’t cause violent crime, people cause violent crime.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/do-more-guns-lead-to-more-violent-crime/#ixzz23RqNB3AU

NRA Stops U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Thanks Fellow NRA Members

Posted on July 27, 2012

U.N. ATT Conference Comes to an Impasse
The Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (U.N. ATT) has broken down and will not report a draft treaty to the member nations.
This is a big victory for American gun owners, and the NRA is being widely credited for killing the U.N. ATT.
For nearly 20 years, the NRA has worked tirelessly to warn American gun owners about the United Nations’ efforts to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners by putting in place international controls on small arms.
NRA became a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and has monitored all U.N. activities that could impact on our Second Amendment rights. As a result, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified before the U.N. (2012 remarks, 2011 remarks) making it clear that the NRA would fight any international treaty that included civilian arms.
NRA worked with our allies in the U.S. Congress and successfully assembled strong bipartisan opposition to any treaty that adversely impacts the Second Amendment. On two occasions NRA was successful in convincing a majority of the U.S. Senate to sign letters to President Obama that made it clear that any treaty that included civilian arms was not going to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Yesterday (July 26), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) gathered the signatures of 51 Senators on a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton opposing any treaty that infringes on our rights. The letter stated “As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure–if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference–that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard.”
NRA members made their voices heard on this issue as well, calling their elected representatives and urging their opposition to the treaty.  As a result, 130 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voiced strong opposition to the treaty.
During the past week, it became increasingly possible that the Conference would fail to come to an agreement on draft language.  On Thursday, the Conference President produced yet another draft of the ATT in an effort to salvage the process. The new draft, like previous ones, was wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment rights protected by our Constitution.
The proponents of the treaty have goals that are clearly at odds with the American Constitution. Their refusal to remove civilian arms from the treaty was one major issue that led to the breakdown in negotiations.  The U.S. delegation made it clear that they could not move forward with the language as it had been drafted.
While this conference has failed to complete a treaty, the proponents will not give up.  It is likely that a new conference will be held in the future and NRA will continue to fight to protect the rights of American gun owners.
NRA maintains its steadfast opposition to any treaty that includes civilian arms in any way.  NRA will continue to work with our allies, particularly in the U.S. Senate, to insure that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not threatened by this or any future international treaty.

Print Email Share

“As I was sitting down to get my seat, I noticed that a person came up to the front row, the front right, sat down, and as credits were going, it looked like he got a phone call. He went out toward the emergency exit doorway, which I thought was unusual to take a phone call. And it seemed like he probably pried it open, or probably did not let it latch all the way. As soon as the movie started, somebody came in, all black, gas mask, armor, and threw a gas can into the audience, and it went off, and then there were gunshots that took place.”

– “Witness: Someone let gunman inside Colorado movie theater,” CNN, July 20, 2012

An Aurora Accomplice?

No doubt many Americans believe James Holmes acted alone in shooting up the Denver theater because they were told that was the case, despite at least one witness report that someone else appears to have been involved. While it is a remote possibility that Holmes was the individual seen opening the emergency exit prior to the entrance of the gunman, the fact that he has his hair dyed bright red tends to preclude that possibility as the witness would be expected to have remembered such an unusual attribute. And even if the man taking the phone call was Holmes, that would raise the question of who called him just prior to the attack.

WHY I CARRY A GUN

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.

I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.

I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.

I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.

I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.

I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.

I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.

I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.

I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.

I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.

I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.

I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.

Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a butt whoopin’.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6175/reasons-why-i-carry-a-gun/#ixzz20px91XME

Taken from USCCA, Tim Schmidt commenting. “I saw this story on The Blaze this week and it hit me pretty hard.  I have a son who is turning 14 years-old soon and I can only imagine the thoughts running through this kid’s mind and the mind of his father and mother.  Thankfully it has a happy ending, but we all know that most of these stories don’t end like this.  Here is a bit of the story to get you caught up”…

Police cars surround the scene of the would-be crime (Photo: Fox 10 News)

================================================================ (The Blaze/AP) — A 14-year-old boy shot and nearly killed an intruder who broke into his Phoenix home and pulled a gun on him while he was watching his three younger siblings, police said Saturday.

The teen and his siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, were at home alone when a woman rang the doorbell on Friday. A common enough occurrence, the boy still chose not to open the door because he didn’t recognize the woman.

Quickly escalating into a far more dangerous situation, the 14-year-old rushed his siblings upstairs after he heard a loud bang on the door, grabbing his father’s handgun on the way.

When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw an armed man break through the front door and point a gun at him.

Acting swiftly, he reportedly shot the 37-year-old man, who was taken to a hospital in extremely critical condition to undergo surgery….

…“This was mid-block in a neighborhood, at 4:30 in the afternoon in summertime and children are there,” he said. “They just took a heck of a gamble for this particular house, and we’ve got to try to figure out why.” ================================================================ This happened mid-block at 4:30 pm… These crooks were desperate and they were willing to gamble their own lives to break into this random house.  This just goes to show you that no house is exempt and crooks are plain stupid.

I want to point out the preparation and mental mindset of this 14 year-old boy. Without any hesitation he got his loved ones to safety, and without a second guess he reached for the loaded pistol his dad keeps in the house.

This was a situation where seconds meant the difference between life and death.  This young boy acted and responded with great confidence and maturity, and for that I applaud him. Great job young man!

This is exactly why I train my kids to be ready at all times and why I take them shooting regularly.

And this is why I encourage you to do the same…

Katie Pavlich, editor at Townhall.com is interviewed on “The Daily Rant” (Tuesday, June 5th, 2012 ) by host Mychal Massie . No scandal is more threatening to the Obama administration than Operation Fast and Furious. While other scandals involve money, Fast and Furious involves lives, including that of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, gunned down with a weapon that the federal government put in the hands of Mexico’s narco-terrorists.

Katie Pavlich’s new book “Fast and Furious”: ‘Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up’ – explains, in chilling detail, just what this operation conducted by the ATF, under the supervision of the Justice Department, entailed – equally appalling is the blatant cover-up of wrongdoing by the Obama administration. No reporter has been more dogged in tracking down the facts about Fast and Furious than Katie Pavlich.

Go visit our audio files page Talkin’ to America and listen to the interview with Katie Pavlich to learn more about this travesty. (Our thanks for permission received to post this on JPFO from Mychal Massie.)

The Last of the BOHICANS.

How You’ve Been Conned into Surrendering Your Gun Rights And How You Can Turn the Tables
By Aaron Zelman and Claire Wolfe. Copyright JPFO. Inc 2007

Share/Bookmark

smalline

NOTE – minor update changes have been made during this page’s reformatting. (Webmaster)

“BOHICA!”screamed the e-mail alert. “Bend over, here it comes again!”

It was a familiar story. Politicians were about to pull yet another colossal  act of betrayal, about to break yet another compromise with gun owners, about  to put thousands more citizens at risk of prison for obscure technical  violations of law.

BOHICA has become a way of life for people who care about the Bill of Rights,  especially the Second Amendment.

So what did the group sending the urgent e-mail alert beg everybody to do?  “Call your representative!” — again — “Write the governor!” — again — “Tell  your friends to call their representatives!” –again.

Let’s be realistic: Do we honestly believe an arrogant group of known liars and  oathbreakers is suddenly going to morph into Patrick Henry just because they  receive yet another batch of desperate, angry pleas from people who’ve been on  the losing side of every gun-law battle since the National Firearms Act was  passed in 1934?

“BOHICA,” indeed! If you keep bending over like that, they’ll keep doing “it” again.

So why do so many of us keep on bending over — making the same predictable responses to  political chicanery — long after we’ve seen that our desperate, hopeful  actions don’t win us freedom? We do it because we’ve been conned. It’s that  simple. We’ve been buffaloed into believing that “politics as usual” is our  only option. We’ve even been told that being political puppets is our  “responsibility” as citizens.

It’s not. There are more effective things we can do. But first, look at the  devastation caused by this political con we’ve been suckered into.

smalline

Throwing away your money, your efforts, freedom, and your future

How many billions of dollars have freedom groups spent financing political  campaigns, lobbying, or struggling to change laws through legislative  letter-writing blitzes*? How many checks have firearms manufacturers written to  how many lawyers and lobbyists? How many hundreds or thousands of your own  hard-earned dollars have you poured into politics? How many thousands of hours  have you simply thrown away writing begging letters to politicians, standing at  rallies, voting, campaigning, sending faxes, and making calls to  “representatives” whose bored office staffers don’t even bother to pass along  your messages and whose bosses wouldn’t listen if they did?

How many times have you helped send some guy to Washington or Albany or  Sacramento thinking, “There, now he’ll take care of us” — only to have him  come back a month later telling you, “You just don’t understand how things are  done on Capitol Hill” – as if he were representing the government, not  you?

We rally ’round Party R, alarmed by the terrible things Party D wants to do to  our Second Amendment rights. Party R marches into office, banners of “reform”  flying high. In the name of “compromise,” Party R then does exactly what Party  D threatened to do – and comes back looking for more contributions and  votes! “Think how much worse it would have hurt if Party D had done it to you!”  they say. BOHICA!

And how many times have you felt sick as the public applauded the latest law or  regulation against freedom — because peoples’ hearts belong to the other side,  and their minds are uneducated about the real issues behind the feel-good  language of “safety,” “preventing crime,” and “reasonable measures” to “protect  children”?

Yes, you may have had an occasional, temporary victory, particularly at the  local or state level. (Even a card sharp knows he sometimes needs to let the  marks win to keep them hoping.) But in the end, every one of your political  dollars, every one of your countless political hours, has not only been wasted,  but has actually helped your opponents beat you in a rigged game.

The illusion that you’re doing something to protect freedom has kept you  occupied like a sucker trying to spot the shell with the pea under it while  fast- talking politicians and remote bureaucrats carried out long-term  anti-freedom plans that your eye couldn’t follow.

smalline

Fighting to lose your gun rights

Second Amendment fighters: What have you gained by relying on politicians?

  • You’ve lost the right to own some firearms unless you pay a tax and submit to a government license.
  • You’ve lost the right to purchase a gun through a catalog and have it sent to you.
  • You’ve lost the right to own some firearms, simply because politicians and regulators thought they looked ugly or scary.
  • You’ve lost the right to carry a gun with big enough magazine capacity to be useful in a serious firefight.
  • You’ve lost the right to defend yourself in schools, churches, city hall, airports, parks, and hundreds of other places.
  • You’ve lost the right even to drive or walk in the neighborhood of a school.
  • You’ve lost the right to own guns if you were convicted of even certain minor crimes decades ago (and along with that, you’ve lost the ex post facto protections of the Constitution).
  • You’ve lost the right to carry concealed and exchanged it for a revocable, government-granted privilege, complete with fingerprints and criminal background checks.
  • You’ve lost the right to buy a gun quickly to protect yourself against someone who’s threatening you.
  • You’ve lost privacy in all but a handful of gun purchases (and are soon to lose that, thanks to dogged and dishonest efforts to “close the gun- show loophole”).
  • And you’ve ended up living in a culture that demonizes you as a violent, cretinous, “gun nut.”

Despite short-term compromise “victories,” the bottom line is that you’ve put  up with a steady erosion of rights that hasn’t stopped since you father’s,  grandfather’s, or maybe even great- grandfather’s day.

And now we rejoice because, with the Clinton regime gone, we believe politicians  are going to be a LITTLE LESS QUICK about taking the next round of our  rights. We get excited when we learn that Attorney General John Ashcroft says the Second Amendment  protects an individual right to own firearms — so excited that we overlook the  fine print, where he says next that Congress has the right to enact “gun  control” laws “for compelling state interests.”

What exactly does “compelling state interests” mean? Who defines it? Who’ll  enforce it — and how brutally?

What kind of mentality have we developed, that we get excited over something like that? Have we adopted the numbed mindset of the carnival  mark who walks away feeling victorious because he won some cheap piece of junk  not worth one-tenth the money he invested in the crooked game?

Have we come to expect to lose our freedoms? Have we come to believe  there’s no realistic alternative? Good news: There is an alternative —  and a powerful one. But first, we’ve got to get over this BOHICA thinking  and the BOHICA, “politics as usual” actions it leads to.

smalline

The key to understanding what’s going on

Long ago, and for a very short time in America, what your teachers told you was  true. You could change things by voting and campaigning and writing letters to your  representatives — because they actually were your representatives.

An informed citizenry and a legislature made up of ordinary fellow citizens  could protect rights — for a while. But that system was doomed to exactly the  fate it has met. A professional class of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, and  lobbyists took over, and citizens (increasingly uninformed or dis-informed)  were left out in the cold. While the professional class still pays lip service  to “democracy,” their fundamental relationship to us is to 1) get money out of  us, 2) make us dependent on them, and 3) keep us pacified enough that we don’t  pick up pitchforks and tear their little con castle down.

Now, when a teacher, politician, U.N. worker, bureaucrat, or some other  government supporter preaches about your “responsibility” to vote and otherwise  “work within the system” she’s basically conning you. She’s either ignorant of  reality or trying desperately to prevent you from exercising the “pitchfork  option.” She’s like the carnival pitchman whose patter and flamboyant gestures  are designed to keep you from noticing what’s going on behind the curtain.

A few fundamental facts to keep in mind:

  • Just as the press is free for the man who owns one, “The System” works for those who run it. And that isn’t you. That isn’t any group you belong to, not even the biggest and most powerful. “The System” works just fine – but doesn’t work for your interests.
  • The one or two politicians who actually care about your rights are vastly outnumbered and rendered powerless by established ways of doing business. Their bills rarely even make it out of committee, thanks to manipulative leaders and procedural chicanery.
  • The whole process of “law-making” is about making more laws, not repealing them. It’s about centralizing power, not distributing it.
  • Even if your representative claimsto favor your rights, she almost certainly votes against them in huge, unread bills passed late at night.
  • Freedom can’t be won back exactly as it was lost, through a long, slow process  of lawmaking and regulation. The thousands of bureaucracies and  special-interest fiefdoms that cling to government are easy to build, almost  impossible to tear down. They’ll only be dismantled if there’s a vast change in  the American consciousness — which we aren’t achieving through all our  politicking.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that those posturing politicians  you’re begging to aren’t even the ones in charge anymore. As Mark  Bateman put it so well in a letter to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms  Ownership:

We defeat them in the ballot box. We defeat them in the legislature. We defeat  them in the courts. However, here is where they CAN AND ARE WINNING: the  bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has for quite some time been the NEW lawmakers  in our land and the ability of the BATF to simply make a ruling that turns YOU  into a FELON for possession of what was once legal is creating law  without representation. This is BANNING (through economics) and REGISTRATION by bureaucratic ruling!

All the voting, rallying, and political letter writing in the world won’t reach  this class of professional bureaucrats and enforcers. They’re not elected by  you. They’re not answerable to you. They don’t care about you and your pathetic  little claims of “rights,” and “justice.”

Reality has changed. And if you don’t change with it, your rights will soon  perish.

smalline

Changing the culture

“But if we don’t keep doing this,” the freedom fighters cry, “things will get  worse!”

Well, duh, things are getting worse ANYWAY.

In the ghettos of Europe, the “wise” men of the Jewish councils advised their  communities to play by the Nazis’ rules – to go along to get along. “If  we don’t,” they warned, “things will get worse.” People were loaded into cattle  cars. People were taken into the woods and shot. People were enslaved,  imprisoned, gassed, and flung naked into mass graves – and still the  “wise” men counseled cooperation because otherwise, “things will get worse.”

How much worse do things have to get before some people realize you can’t win  at a rigged political game? Stop cooperating in the con! If the mark won’t  play, the con artist can’t win.

You don’t even have to take the risks the young ghetto fighters eventually  took. Your solution may be as simple as talking with your next-door neighbor.  But it requires thinking far outside the political box. The solution is a  grassroots reawakening. A rebirth of a Bill of Rights culture in America.

That’s is a major change, to be sure. Accomplishing it will take hard work and  time – but no more time than you’re currently wasting on politics. Grassroots change is doable  because, instead of trying vainly to influence unreachable men and women far  away, it involves influencing the people around us — family members,  co-workers, neighbors, fellow students, children, fellow activists — people we  can reach.

Do something really dangerous, something that will truly scare our would-be  rulers into taking us seriously — encourage people to think and give them the  tools to help them do it.

Bob LeFevre, the great, unconventional educator (on whom Robert Heinlein based  his memorable character Bernardo de la Paz in the novel The Moon is a Harsh  Mistress), once told an audience that, if he could push a button and instantly impose  freedom he wouldn’t do it, because unless people had a change of heart, they  would quickly turn around and create a new (and perhaps even worse) system of  oppression.

Once we have a Bill of Rights culture, including a strong, healthy appreciation  and understanding of the Second Amendment, the government will follow. (If it  fails to follow, it will fall.) Even the bureaucracy, unalterable as it seems  now, will be dismantled once people no longer want, and are no longer willing  to pay for, what it represents. On the other hand, if we don’t attain a  freedom- oriented culture at the most basic, grassroots level, then all the  politics in the world won’t save us.

smalline

What you can do

Let’s be up front. This section includes an unabashed pitch for you to use JPFO  literature. We’re also going to ask you to help us finance a TV documentary  “Innocents Betrayed,” based on the new book Death by ‘Gun control’ by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens.

But don’t tune out. Even if you decide never to buy a single booklet from JPFO,  the main thing you need to do to effect a grassroots culture change is the  same.

You need to convey the value of the Bill of Rights, very simply and clearly, to  people who’ve been “hypnotized and Jenningized” by television, who expect  instant gratification, and who’ve been soothed into believing that government’s  purpose is to be a father and mother to them.

This kind of simple — but factual and verifiable – pro-Bill of Rights message  is what we at JPFO specialize in.

Our Gran’pa Jack series of illustrated booklets gets across messages like these:

  • Gran’pa Jack #1 – “‘Gun control’ kills kids”. Learn how governments use “gun control” to disarm and murder people.
  • Gran’pa Jack #2 – “Can you get a fair trial in America?”. Know the historic and present benefit of a fully informed jury.
  • Gran’pa Jack #3 – “It’s common sense to use our Bill of Rights”. A simple, fun-to-read explanation of the Bill of Rights.
  • Gran’pa Jack #4 – “‘Gun control’ is racist”. Supporters of “gun control” in the black and other minority communities really need to read this one.
  • Gran’pa Jack #5 – “The United Nations is killing your freedoms”. See how the U.N. is trying to destroy the Bill of Rights.
  • Gran’pa Jack #6 – “Will ‘Gun control’ make you safer?”. Exposes the myths behind “gun control” beliefs.
  • Gran’pa Jack #7 – “Do gun prohibitionists have a mental problem?”. Learn to communicate more effectively with people whose mindset has made them fear firearms.
  • Gran’pa Jack #8 – “Is America becoming a police state?’. See how governement is destroying our freedoms.

Learn more about these invaluable booklets – you can visit the descriptions page describing them all with, options to purchase (note, deep discounts for bulk orders), or also – visit a newer page with an informative video presentation.

Using the character of wise Gran’pa Jack and his ever-questioning family  members, these booklets convey a ton of specific legal, historic, factual  information while being as easy to read as comic books. They’re perfect for  teaching people who’ve never thought about the issues, but they also contain  enough solid information to help persuade an educated opponent. (Even an  experienced freedom fighter will find new intellectual ammo in them.)

Use them almost anywhere with anybody. Put them on a counter at a gun store.  Hand them out at a school presentation. Distribute them at an information  booth. Give them to your children or neighbors. (Just the other day we got a  call from a National Guardsman stationed at a major airport. He asked us to  send 50 assorted copies for him to share with people in his unit. Realizing how  little some of the others knew about freedom, he thought of Gran’pa Jack as the  simplest way to educate them. We wouldn’t be surprised if, after being passed  around among the Guardsmen, many of these Gran’pa Jacks ended up in the hands  of “security” screeners, airline passengers, and air crew members — some of  whom especially need to learn about the Bill of Rights.)

There are nearly one million Gran’pa Jack booklet already in circulation.  Imagine the impact if there were 50 million … 100 million. As the late Sen.  Everett Dirksen said, “When I feel the heat, I see the light.” Let’s enlighten everybody.

Now JPFO is working on the top-quality, one-hour TV documentary, “Innocents  Betrayed.” Louis James of the Henry Hazlitt Foundation said this documentary,  “… might well be the stake in the heart of victim disarmament that  destroys the ‘Gun control’ myth and helps restore the fundamental human right  of self-defense in America, and beyond.”

TV may be the best medium for reaching our fellow Americans. Unfortunately  it remains the most expensive. This historical opportunity is going  to cost $170,000. So we’re asking everyone to make a one-time, tax-deductable  donation of $29 or more between now and June 2002. A $75 donation  gets you a free, autographed copy of the new book, Death by “Gun  Control.” For a donation of $100 or more, you’ll get Death  by “Gun Control” ($16.95 value, postpaid) and the new book, The  State vs. the People ($19.95 value), which shows how America is  sliding toward a police state. Donate more and you’ll get both books  and a copy of the film. (This information was current at time of writing – it is left in for completeness’ sake, although it has to be said, donations are always much appreciated and welcome.)

If you don’t want to buy Gran’pa Jack booklets or donate to the documentary,  that’s your decision, of course. But please go out and do something that gets  the Bill of Rights message across in ways as simple, dramatic, friendly, and  clear as Gran’pa Jack does it. You can start by distributing this article far  and wide. E-mail it to your friends, link to it on the Web, print copies and  hand them out to people who need to get the message.

Anything you do to create a freedom culture will be worth doing. But take a look  at what JPFO has to offer. There’s a huge job ahead for everyone who wants to  fight effectively for freedom. We’ve already done a lot of groundwork to give your efforts a more  powerful impact.

Open the eyes of people who’ve been conned. Make this generation the LAST of the  BOHICANS.

smalline

* References to the uselessness of letter writing apply only to letters sent  privately to politicians. JPFO endorses writing letters to the editor, which  can be an effective means of educating people. We have occasionally published  templates for such letters on our Web site. Open letters to politicians may  also be useful to whatever extent they are widely circulated and read by the  public.

If you want to understand the ultimate progression of “gun control,” read Death by “Gun Control”: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament by Aaron Zelman and  Richard W. Stevens. It begins with “reasonable measures” to control the unruly;  it ends in the death of a thousand cuts – and millions of disarmed citizens.  Visit the Death By Gun Control Page), to learn more, as well as seeing the JPFO Genocide Chart.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: