An interesting truth that is often ignored even by those that are gun advocates, is that guns are designed to stop people from whatever they are doing, not kill them. Granted, in the process of stopping them you will likely kill them and the very act of firing a weapon is an act where the use of deadly force needs to be justified, but killing the suspect is rarely the intended purpose. Now I'm not saying this because I think one should shoot to wound, I am saying this because if the average citizen or even police officer shoots and wounds a suspect, and the suspect is then no longer a threat, practically none will walk up on the wounded suspect and finish them off; is killing the suspect was the purpose they would! The police are taught to shoot at the center of mass at a human silhouette target. This is not because shooting a person center of mass has a greater probability of killing a human target, but because shooting center of mass increases the probability of hitting a human target, thus increasing the probability of stopping a suspect. The left has based all it's anti-gun rhetoric that all guns have one purpose; to kill. That even target shooters are only honing their skills for hunting and/or killing; never mind that of the 100 million gun owners in the US, only 37.7 million have participated in hunting of some kind. Therefore the idea that gun is actually a tool to stop someone from doing harm usually results in extreme responses. This Thursday I called KSCO and talked with Mark Silverman who had as a guest West Holts, from California Gun Talk. My call was in response of an incredibly stupid remark by Silverman. Silverman was discussing an incident where a female shot a male intruder 5 times with a handgun and the intruder survived. Silverman then said since the female didn't kill the suspect with 5 rounds there would be no reason for her to have a large capacity magazine, the impetus being since the only purpose of a gun is to kill people, the victim had somehow failed to protect herself because she didn't kill the intruder and would not need more ammunition if there were more intruders because she had already shown she wouldn't be able to kill them. When I said that she had accomplished her goal by stopping the intruder from doing her harm, which is the same reason a police officer uses deadly force, to stop someone from committing a violent act. At this Silverman cut me off, stated off the cuff that the police are not taught to shoot at knees and hung up on me; expect this result from the left because it is poison to their script..
When deadly force is justified, to sole purpose is to stop the perpetrator; whether it results in the perpetrator's death or not is really inconsequential.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Tenche Coxe, founding father, defines a militia.
As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry
independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar
description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the
Continental Congress in 1788-1789).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
The left has been trying to redefine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for decades, so it's no surprise that most of the letters seem astonished at most pro-gun arguments; let's see if we can cut through the bull and find out what our founding fathers were talking about. "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". Many are confused as to the meaning of a "militia". The meaning in context is quite clear. Our finding fathers were concerned that a strong leader would emerge and enslave the United States citizenry, using the nations own standing army . They decided however, the American citizenry would be deemed an armed militia, not controlled by the state or federal government, would be able to stand up to any army. Now read the second amendment and see if it makes more sense. This also addresses the "they meant muskets" and "you don't need a 20 round clip to kill Bambi" arguments; so the arms in the 2nd Amendment were to arm the citizenry to defeat an Army, not to go hunting.
Here are some examples of those letters from those confused and ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Recent rhetoric from the NRA tries to make the case that we should be focusing our efforts on addressing the causes (i.e. crazy people) instead of treating the symptoms (i.e. banning automatic assault weapons designed with only one purpose -- to kill people). Living in a culture in which people with access to guns routinely commit massacres makes people crazy. And why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied by the NRA, anyway? They're not elected officials. Let's put this issue to a national vote and see what the rest of the country thinks. And by the way, the Second Amendment ensures a well-armed militia. We have one of those. It's called the National Guard.
Jayme Kelly Curtis, Felton
My response:
Jayme Kelly Curtis, you sound like from the Huffington Post. #1 the NRA has a membership and 4.3 million and represent over 100 million gun owners. As a member I give them permission to bully you or anyone else that seeks to mitigate gun ownership. Further the idea that gun massacres are routine is absurd and just another attempt by the left re-define reality to fit their agenda. According to the FBI's own statistics, gun crimes in the last 10 years have gone down 49% while ownership has increased 25-30% in the same time period; how does that jive with your world view of cause and effect of gun violence?
As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Then there was a bogger name "Will Sharp" who was a walking talking point from the Huffington Post (or similar left wing information media). True the nra is only interested in protecting gun profits period. They and their followers have nothing to do with freedom and many are unbalanced extremists who are out of touch with what the vast majority of real Americans want common sense laws that protect our society. At the end of the day we will get those laws eventually because the gun violence will contunue and the public will demand it. Gun nuts can spout off about the constitution that they barely understand all they want the solution is obvious less guns on the street period. Will Sharp
My response;
Will Sharp, here is a statement by another gun nut on the 2nd Amendment, Tenche Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress at the time of the ratification and implementation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights 1788-1789; "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Things change with time as does the the constitution. In fact the second ammendment (sic) is just that an ammendment (sic) or change. I think the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" trumps gun fanatics right to menace the vast majority of real Americans. And it's a matter of time before these same extremists abuse the second amendment and it's amended. Will Sharp
My response:
Will Sharp appears to be a typical liberal the continually accuses those he disagrees with his own shortcomings. While "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Constitution, it is implied; the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights was meant to innumerate those rights under specific circumstances (they were not meant to change the US Constitution in any way). A bill of rights was actually quite contentious at the time, as historically a bill of rights was a concession by a monarch and the belief was if a Monarch could grant rights he could also take them away. The Declaration of Independence defined individual rights as not given by man but endowed by their Creator, therefore all the rights enumerated in the original 10 amendments of Bill of Rights are also "unalienable Rights" that were "endowed by our creator". The right to bear arms is a necessary component of the right to, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the second amendment simply articulated that the right to bear arms would also be protected by law.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
The left has been trying to redefine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for decades, so it's no surprise that most of the letters seem astonished at most pro-gun arguments; let's see if we can cut through the bull and find out what our founding fathers were talking about. "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". Many are confused as to the meaning of a "militia". The meaning in context is quite clear. Our finding fathers were concerned that a strong leader would emerge and enslave the United States citizenry, using the nations own standing army . They decided however, the American citizenry would be deemed an armed militia, not controlled by the state or federal government, would be able to stand up to any army. Now read the second amendment and see if it makes more sense. This also addresses the "they meant muskets" and "you don't need a 20 round clip to kill Bambi" arguments; so the arms in the 2nd Amendment were to arm the citizenry to defeat an Army, not to go hunting.
Here are some examples of those letters from those confused and ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Recent rhetoric from the NRA tries to make the case that we should be focusing our efforts on addressing the causes (i.e. crazy people) instead of treating the symptoms (i.e. banning automatic assault weapons designed with only one purpose -- to kill people). Living in a culture in which people with access to guns routinely commit massacres makes people crazy. And why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied by the NRA, anyway? They're not elected officials. Let's put this issue to a national vote and see what the rest of the country thinks. And by the way, the Second Amendment ensures a well-armed militia. We have one of those. It's called the National Guard.
Jayme Kelly Curtis, Felton
My response:
Jayme Kelly Curtis, you sound like from the Huffington Post. #1 the NRA has a membership and 4.3 million and represent over 100 million gun owners. As a member I give them permission to bully you or anyone else that seeks to mitigate gun ownership. Further the idea that gun massacres are routine is absurd and just another attempt by the left re-define reality to fit their agenda. According to the FBI's own statistics, gun crimes in the last 10 years have gone down 49% while ownership has increased 25-30% in the same time period; how does that jive with your world view of cause and effect of gun violence?
As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Then there was a bogger name "Will Sharp" who was a walking talking point from the Huffington Post (or similar left wing information media). True the nra is only interested in protecting gun profits period. They and their followers have nothing to do with freedom and many are unbalanced extremists who are out of touch with what the vast majority of real Americans want common sense laws that protect our society. At the end of the day we will get those laws eventually because the gun violence will contunue and the public will demand it. Gun nuts can spout off about the constitution that they barely understand all they want the solution is obvious less guns on the street period. Will Sharp
My response;
Will Sharp, here is a statement by another gun nut on the 2nd Amendment, Tenche Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress at the time of the ratification and implementation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights 1788-1789; "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Things change with time as does the the constitution. In fact the second ammendment (sic) is just that an ammendment (sic) or change. I think the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" trumps gun fanatics right to menace the vast majority of real Americans. And it's a matter of time before these same extremists abuse the second amendment and it's amended. Will Sharp
My response:
Will Sharp appears to be a typical liberal the continually accuses those he disagrees with his own shortcomings. While "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Constitution, it is implied; the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights was meant to innumerate those rights under specific circumstances (they were not meant to change the US Constitution in any way). A bill of rights was actually quite contentious at the time, as historically a bill of rights was a concession by a monarch and the belief was if a Monarch could grant rights he could also take them away. The Declaration of Independence defined individual rights as not given by man but endowed by their Creator, therefore all the rights enumerated in the original 10 amendments of Bill of Rights are also "unalienable Rights" that were "endowed by our creator". The right to bear arms is a necessary component of the right to, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the second amendment simply articulated that the right to bear arms would also be protected by law.
Friday, February 1, 2013
The Fallacy of "If Only One Life is Saved"
In the typical twisted logic of a progressive, President Obama recently said of increased gun control, "if there's one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try." This is simply a collectivist idiom designed to make giving up ones rights sound noble. Millions of Americans sacrificed their lives for the freedoms we now enjoy, but President Obama would have us believe that if a freedom might lead to the injury of some innocent person, than that freedom should be mitigated or excised away; it's government saying, you are not smart enough to make the decisions that rule your life, so the government must step in and do it for you; it is the road to self enslavement. The collectivist will always take some tragedy and drive up the hysteria ("never let an emergency go to waste"), then explain that unfortunately some individual rights will need to be given up for the greater good and there is no tragedy that can not be politicized by the left; it is not out of the realm of possibilities that Gabrielle Giffords injured brain was unable to even understand her anti-gun speech given recently in a congressional hearing ). The reasoning of "If only one life is saved," is collectivist rhetoric that will never accomplish it's stated purpose of saving lives, or like gun bans, the regulations will only be symbolic at the time, but will morph into into the call for more restrictive regulations in the future. Even worse, we give up our freedoms because we are told, every individual
right taken away may have the consequence of saving a life). The
collectivist politician(s) continue to promise not only what they can
never deliver, but what the have no intention on delivering. The purpose behind such actions are described by Thomas Sowell ;
"The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone". Obama's Rhetoric
In a society with individual rights, regulations and laws are a governmental request for voluntary compliance. But with a concentration of power and a loss of individual rights (history has shown that collectivist societies breed totalitarian and oppressive regimes) there is no need voluntary compliance. Collectivists like President Obama like to use the same terminology as our founding documents but give them a collectivist meaning. A perfect example is the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution. Any person who has spent any time reading the Federalist Papers, know that far from being a social mandate, " promoting the general welfare" was the end result of the Constitution, and it's guarantee of individual rights and limited government. Finally lets look at the gun problem logically. There hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and only a handful of nut-jobs that may want to slaughter the our children in the schools. Do we ban future sales of certain weapons that are rarely used in this slaughter, or do we guard the children? I have a son starting High School next year and I know what I want..and it's not a symbolic gesture.
"The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone". Obama's Rhetoric
In a society with individual rights, regulations and laws are a governmental request for voluntary compliance. But with a concentration of power and a loss of individual rights (history has shown that collectivist societies breed totalitarian and oppressive regimes) there is no need voluntary compliance. Collectivists like President Obama like to use the same terminology as our founding documents but give them a collectivist meaning. A perfect example is the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution. Any person who has spent any time reading the Federalist Papers, know that far from being a social mandate, " promoting the general welfare" was the end result of the Constitution, and it's guarantee of individual rights and limited government. Finally lets look at the gun problem logically. There hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and only a handful of nut-jobs that may want to slaughter the our children in the schools. Do we ban future sales of certain weapons that are rarely used in this slaughter, or do we guard the children? I have a son starting High School next year and I know what I want..and it's not a symbolic gesture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)