‘Gun Rights?’ Stop Playing a Loser’s Game
I receive a daily email distribution on Second Amendment related media coverage. Today’s subject line said “gun rights.” Today was the last day I’m taking that sitting down.
“Gun rights” keeps the focus on guns, which is where the Alinsky-loving people-haters want the focus to remain. By continuing to support their narrative, we will lose our guns, and then our rights.
I couldn’t care less about guns. I don’t love guns; I don’t even like them. But as a self-defense tool and a symbol of Liberty and self-actualization, they are excellent. Inanimate objects don’t have rights. People do. We have a civil right of self-defense, and guns are the best tool available to promote and protect that right.
When a 250 pound predator breaks into the home of a 120 pound woman, does she or doesn’t she have the right to stop him from raping and murdering her?
Remember that the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that police have no duty to save her life. Even a woman who obtained a restraining order has no special relationship with police. If the cops write a report on her three dead children, they’ve discharged their duty. (See TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES.)
Does a neighbor have the right to come to another’s defense? Neighbors helping each other strengthens the fabric of society.
Do citizens have the right to help a stranger being attacked? The cowardly try to deflect us from their craven natures by saying we should not get involved and just call the police and consider ourselves as having done our duty as members of civil society. (“Civil society”? Now there’s an oxymoron for you.)
People helping people strengthens civil society. So what does that say about those telling us to not get involved?
They claim that getting involved, or even defending yourself, just “increases the violence.” Really? Two problems here:
First, self-defense is not violence. If you successfully accomplish legitimate self-defense, the courts don’t find you guilty of a crime. Your self-defense doesn’t appear on the FBI violent crime reports. Even the government recognizes self-defense isn’t violence.
Second, self-defense decreases violence. One predator removed from society is many crimes not committed in the future. Cops tell me that by the time a criminal gets arrested, he’s committed many crimes that go unreported or not cleared by police. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that between 2000 and 2008, only 42% of rape victims reported their attacks to police. Only 71 prison sentences were handed out for every 1,000 rapes committed. That means a rapist has a 93% chance of getting away with it. (It’s a big Excel workbook, so there’s no citation. But if you want to look into it, go to the BJS site and search for “Federal Justice Statistics” for each year.)
For those still insisting that keeping their heads in the sand means that Castle Rock v. Gonzales doesn’t exist: It’s even worse than that. I document in my book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control that after Britain and Australia destroyed the civil right of self-defense, they began dismantling double jeopardy. As they did with gun control, they claimed this was a benefit to society.
In reality, this means that incompetent prosecutors can haul you back into court for another go-round. The government can afford to spend the money on another trial, because it’s not their money and they can always raise taxes as expenses rise. Meanwhile, the defendant has been rendered powerless via disarmament and is at risk of bankruptcy from ongoing legal expenses.
Both societies were rendered harmless to redress grievances against their government via civilian disarmament. No more right of self-defense against criminals below or above.
So the next time somebody talks to you about “gun rights,” ask them if they mean the civil right of self-defense, and ask them some of the questions I asked above. It’s time to stop being on the defensive by talking about “gun rights,” and take back the narrative by talking about the civil rights of self-defense and the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes yes yes. Without getting lost in the weeds, the Right must de-construct and attack the deconstructions of the Left.
Excellent article. We need a concerted effort with a lot more of the same. The Left are at war to destroy us and this nation – a.k.a. “Fundamental Transformation”… We need to meet them, and confront them with the same vigor. We must work to isolate them, mock them mercilessly, defame them, freeze the target, destroy the target, and prevail.
Correct. Simply the right of self-defense and self-survival, and it works at all levels of discussion, including hunting weapons, if you include the self-survival bit in it.
Arguing the right to an effective self defense is better. However, it leave open the counter of the gun grabbers seeking to argue that one can use harsh words or desperate calls to 911 for self defense.
But if the argument is couched in the terms of a right to the same means of effective self defense used by government agents: police, politician security, privileged aldermen, mayors, etc. Then it might work.
It should be noted the grabbers are not against arguing that the police carry and use firearms for other than self defense. They fail to see that they are implying the police use their firearms for murder and other crimes since the use of deadly force is only justifiable in response to a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, even for government actors. Of course, as we’ve seen in CA, some police have taken a shoot first and, to bad if the victims turn out to be innocent paper deliverers.
Indeed, the California LAPD hosing off rounds at innocents is a troubling sign at many levels (personal, organizational, societal), and an indicator that citizens simply should not accept arguments that cops are universally more reliable or trustworthy.
As the State of California decides whether to enact draconian laws, it should look at the attitudes of its own cops first. Clearly not “peace officers”, but too often a union with guns. As I have minor reason to know. Too many guys thinking tney are now superior over the populace.
Using 9/11 to argue about something somebody said about self-defense is a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Because somebody called for self-defense after 9/11 and it was misplaced, therefore any new call for self-defense is misplaced. That’s an Alinsky game. Just tell them about their logic fault and move on promoting self-defense. Find out what special interest groups they support most and show how gun control is racist and sexist against their sacred cow demographics.
I saw some jackwagon from Houston (a fricking democrat of course) who wants to eliminate the castle defense from anything except your home. In a bar that is being robbed, no right to defend yourself. In your car when it’s carjacked? Sorry, no defense for you. Crowded movie theater and someone opens fire? Don’t fire back, the nut job might just sue you if he survives.
It is about the most basic of all human rights: the right to protect your own life.
Everything else is just window dressing.
Recommend using the term inalienable right, civil rights are granted and can be taken away with the same pen.
Additionally, without a piece of paper (eg. Bill of Rights), this right would still exist as it was viewed by the Anti-Federalists as inalienable at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, which mirrored the Virgina Constitution. It is important that people realize that this “self defense” extends to government agents carrying out the orders of a tyrannical government, just as the Declaration of Independence explains.
Only in america. Hggg disgusting.
I’m a middle aged male with a 4 year degree and also had a thriving residential construction company that employed 10 people year around. In a near by small city the new and only bowling ally has closed along with many other shops, and food. I also work in the public sector and am blown away how people are givin ebt cards and can buy fast food or what ever they want, including smokes and energy drinks? The state of MN sued the tobacco makers and then will give them money to buy what they sued for.
There is no doubt that prescription pills that are shoved into the people of this society are being poisoned just as the military enlisted. How is it more people are dead by suicide than killed in action? A lot of new friends that have arrived here also enjoy using extreme violence by gutting or chopping victims apart with knives or machette’s, because they didn’t fight hard enough to keep their weapons! People need to wake up and realize the world is not the yellow brick road with rose gardens and mayflower poles. Watch “Blood Diamonds”