"Freedom is only there for those who have the guts to defend it." Amen to that.
This story has played out in every location, be it township, city, state or nation that has restricted the rights of individuals to own guns. Sadly, the British will probably never realize a restoration of their gun rights; once the "good guys" are parted from their guns, that basic right is rarely restored.
Thanks so much for the video, Joe. I weep for the victims and for the officers who themselves feel handcuffed from protecting the community that they love.
Unless I'm mistaken, gun ownership in Switzerland is a LOT higher among individuals than here in the States, yet their violent crime rate is a lot lower.
5 people in New Zealand
37 in Sweden
56 in Australia
73 in New England and Whales
184 in Canada
and 11 344 in the USA (where gun laws are most lax)
(source : www.sbcoalition.org)
I still think that free trade of guns, as in the USA, inevitably leads to irresponsible use of those. Even the second amendment, to me, makes a clear reference to the use of guns being limited to trained militias, responsible people, and not just anyone who wishes to buy a mean of killing. Let's face it : some assholes have HUGE money involved in the free trade of guns.
I keep hearing, on this website, stories of people being assaulted in their homes and defending themselves successfully. Okay, fine, but it seems like everyone forgets about all the stories of vulnerable, gunless people getting assaulted in the streets by strangers OR at home by a known acquaintance (for any reason : family dispute or failed relationships).
And I still stand by the conviction that the second amendment was written in another time, another setting, different people with different mindsets and that it shouldn't be free to interpretations so loosely.
If the Constitution is found to be deficient in some area, then it can be changed. Simply ignoring it, ignoring the rule of law, can only lead to tyranny.
There was a comment on gun ownership in Switzerland by AuthenticAuthor while I was writing my last comment.
Gun laws in Switzerland are much different than in the USA. Whereby guns in the USA are available to be bought in stores, Swiss guns are given TO the people, BY government after they have been recruited in den Rekrutenschule (recruiting school in german). Ammo is also issued by the government and they are allowed to keep the gun at home, not in the streets (like in Florida, I believe).
To me, this calls for a completely different philosophy on gun ownership, instead of the "anyone, anywhere, anyhow" that I keep hearing about in countries such as the USA.
I'm not talking about ignoring the constitution. I'm talking about interpreting it correctly.
Posted 01/22/09 10:47 AM Karen in NC Southern Pines, NC
"I'm not talking about ignoring the constitution. I'm talking about interpreting it correctly."
As I see it, and many other Constitutionists see it, the Constitution should not be open to interpretation. It is the rule book. If it fails to address something or needs tweaking to fit times and society--a rule change, if you will--that is to be done through Constitutional amendments, voted on by the people the Constitution represents. If we had followed the Constitution (no central bank, for example, or only Congress coins money), we'd not be in the horrid situation we now find ourselves.
Posted 01/22/09 10:49 AM helen in NC Summerfield, NC
In response to Blunt above:
Personally, I do NOT own a gun, but I firmly believe our second amendment should be upheld. This isn’t about guns for hunting…..this is about self defense. Some food for thought.
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
Please read the following data that someone emailed me when guns were removed from various countries.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
----------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.
With Guns...........We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........We Are 'Subjects'.
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!
For blunt your numbers are meaningless there is only 33 million people in canada.Theres 300 million in the us.Percentage are what counts not raw numbers!
I know this is a minor thing but was most of our navy really destroyed at Pearl Harbor? That just doesn't make sense to me because having close to no navy would probably have severely hindered any US efforts to enter the war abroad..
Posted 01/22/09 11:24 AM boohickey11 Bowling Green, KY
I highly recommend this book. It explains in full detail why America takes a different path on gun rights than any other nation. It also has more facts than you can shake a, rather large, stick at.
"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."
From wikipedia:
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
Ordinary citizens != Government Approved Individuals.
Without an armed militia, there is no free state. This goes along with the comment by "helen in NC".
Pearl Harbor destroyed a large percentage of the Pacific fleet, still leaving us with the Atlantic fleet to take up part of the slack until new ships could be built. Our Navy was not completely destroyed, but was seriously injured in that attack. The Japanese did try for an invasion of Alaska, however, you very seldom hear of it as it was not primarily defeated by the military, but by the private ARMED citizens of Alaska, albeit, under the guidance of some military organization.
Further addition. On the Japanese general's comment as to why they did not continue on to invade the mainland. His statement was that there was a gun behind every blade of grass in this country.
We just started a new website that makes YOU the reporter! Post Videos, Links, and Articles. Completely Un-Censored and you can instantly IM and Debate others directly from our website. There is NO SIGN UP, No giving out your information, unless you want to receive our Daily Video emails. It is Powered by the people and Totally free flowing, un controlled information from people like YOU. Updated every min. Please visit and do your part to contribute to our Revolution by informing the masses. If you dont do it, then who will??
Thank you
- IM and Debate Instantly
- Post your own Videos, Links, and Articles
- Be a Reporter for the People
- Constantly Updated every min
- Daily Emails to keep you updated
"Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you."
Thomas Jefferson
What has kept this country free from attack by foreign powers is that the citizens of this country have the ability and the fortitude to defend it against any and all who would destroy it.
For blunt I should point out that the american legal system is broken and most people could spend more time in prison for smoking pot than for committing murder. The higher rate of violence for guns in America probably has more to do with repeat offenders getting a hold of guns (especially along our poorly controlled southern border) than it does with ordinary gun owners.
Moreover I suspect those statistics vary a great deal from state to state depending on the own gun laws and judicial disfuntion.
As for "proper interpretation" of the consitution -there is only one way to interpret it -the way it was INTENDED and it's pretty clear from the founder's opinions that they meant everybody -not just a trained militia.
For blunt I should point out that the american legal system is broken and most people could spend more time in prison for smoking pot than for committing murder. The higher rate of violence for guns in America probably has more to do with repeat offenders getting a hold of guns (especially along our poorly controlled southern border) than it does with ordinary gun owners.
Moreover I suspect those statistics vary a great deal from state to state depending on the own gun laws and judicial disfuntion.
As for "proper interpretation" of the consitution -there is only one way to interpret it -the way it was INTENDED and it's pretty clear from the founder's opinions that they meant everybody -not just a trained militia.
Blunt, Here is how our founder's interpreted the second Amendment.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason
These are but a few quotes from the Founders and it is pretty clear who they MEANT to be armed. They gave very sound reasoning for the people to be armed. When people interpret the Constitution to say that it is the right of the people at large to be armed, it IS being interpreted properly. While you may have arguments against the soundness of the founders, there is no doubt that your arguments are based on your feelings, and not those of the patriots who wrote our Constitution.
Having been anti-gun in my youth and early adult life, I can attest to the fact that many of the anti-gun advocates put false statistics into the mainstream. For instance, they often cite a total number of gun related deaths while never making a distinction between the dead criminal, or the dead victim. Routinely, the shooting of a husband who was attacking his wife is included under the tidy heading of, "gun related deaths are more likely to occur between family members....." suggesting some sort of tragic accident rather than a case of self-defense.
Gary Kleck is an author who began his career as a STRONG advocate for gun control. When researching his first book on the subject, his intent was to prove that gun control saves lives and should be the goal for our country. What he found was contrary to everything he believed, and he is now a leading advocate for second amendment rights in this country. He found huge cases of gross negligence where statistical reporting was concerned.
I understand some folks' feelings towards guns; I once hated them myself. Researching the subject with an open mind in it's entirety generally tends to bring a much different reality to light than what we have been programmed to believe.
Posted 01/22/09 11:50 AM grantnunnink Nevada City, CA
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO! Buy guns(handgun first). Join the NRA.
I do not own a gun, nor have I ever. However, once upon a time many years ago when I was in college, I borrowed a .22 caliber handgun from my father-in-law since my wife and I lived in a rough neighborhood near the University. One night while we were sleeping, an intruder entered our apartment, knife in hand, and approached my wife in the dark in our bedroom. She suddenly awoke, grabbed the gun from her nightstand drawer, spoke not a word, but held with with both hands and pointed it at the would-be rapist. (There had been many in our neighborhood at that time).
After pausing for a moment, the intruder backed slowly up into the hallway and ran for the kitchen door.
THEN, my wife woke me up. Having a gun that night prevented a crime that could have been tragic. My wife was right not to wake me up until the man left the room, because I would have grabbed it out of her hand and emptied the revolver into the SOB.
I will never surrender my firearms, and to blunt? You obviously cannot interpret the constitution. It is CLEARLY worded, 100%, without a doubt written, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson -PLAIN AS DAY.
I'm sorry but you can give up your freedoms in Canada all you want, I'll keep fighting for mine.
I do not own a weapon at present, but this is something I intend to change at the closest oppurtunity.
Of course, I'll probably buy from a private individual instead of a gun store- the way things are looking, it's best if gun purchases go on under the table for me.
As often as the Birish crime rate is used as propoganda to disarm people (and in all fairness, the rate was far lower than ours LONG before the disarmament-apparently the British just don't put out as many criminals), I'd rather take the advice of the actual people of England, an keep my guns.
I own about a dozen firearms. Some are pistols, some rifles, and a couple of shotguns. The crazy thing is......I have never threatened or killed anyone. I keep them for the protection of my family, life, liberty, and property......and hunting. In that order.
I will never surrender any of my firearms and if the government wants them, they can take them from MY COLD, DEAD HANDS.
Posted 01/22/09 2:27 PM sweetliberty San Rafael, CA
You may join the NRA, but the only 'No Compromise' Gun Rights Advocate in Washington D.C or America is the GOA- Gunowners of America.
Join the Gunowners of America.
http://gunowners.org/
"The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
Posted 01/22/09 3:33 PM StatusQuoJoe Westminster, CO
Blunt, I think that what the authors of our constitution meant was that the citizens of this country would act in a capacity that our current professional military does. In that respect, they were to be armed as well as any typical soldier in a standing army of the time. If we were to extrapolate that idea, then citizens should have to carry gear that would equate them to our current army brigades in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we think this through in what the authors of the constitution intended, then it is the citizen's duty to be armed equivalently to a typical soldier in a standing army today. Myself, I am a complete failure in this duty since I am too cheap to even buy a handgun, but I support the right of any citizen to excercise their duty to the constitution.
First of all look at the per capita. After that, the majority of gun crimes are based on gang crimes, which exist because of drug LAWS. Gangs who gain power from drugs and low-end prostitution, also immortalize the image of power through taking in the minds of people across the impoverished communities.
End drug laws, tax drugs. End prostitution laws, tax that trade. Get the gov. out of debt FAST. Cripple gangs, stop violence, all in one fell swoop. Thoughts?
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is the part of the second amendment that should end all discussion. Who interferes with "Free States"? Governments (Foreign and DOMESTIC). So who's going to protect that freedom? A well armed people. Really, looking at it this way we should have anything it would take to protect that freedom. If a government has assault rifles so should the people for example.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is the part of the second amendment that should end all discussion. Who interferes with "Free States"? Governments (Foreign and DOMESTIC). So who's going to protect that freedom? A well armed people. Really, looking at it this way we should have anything it would take to protect that freedom. If a government has assault rifles so should the people for example.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is the part of the second amendment that should end all discussion. Who interferes with "Free States"? Governments (Foreign and DOMESTIC). So who's going to protect that freedom? A well armed people. Really, looking at it this way we should have anything it would take to protect that freedom. If a government has assault rifles so should the people for example.
For me it's quite easy. When I hear a gun grabber bashing weapons, this is what I tell them:
Let me give you an example of two countries. In one country, only the state has weapons. No private citizen is allowed to have a gun. In the other country, every person is allowed to have a weapon. Neither the criminals on the street nor the government knows who has weapons. In which land are the people more free? In which land do criminals more fear the innocent? In which land must the government tread more lightly on liberty?
Nuff' said.
Posted 01/22/09 9:26 PM Jaret Glenn St. Petersburg, FL
Every citizen was a member of his own state's militia in the founders' time.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson
This highlights a very important issue: government should be engaged in punishing crime, not trying to prevent it. If government could effectively prevent crime without infringing on the rights of its citizens, then it would be great for them to do so, but I have never seen an example of this, other than providing a deterrant for those who would commit crimes. Let citizens themselves work to prevent crimes and you'll have a very effective force of people doing so. But allow the government to do it and you'll often find that crime doesn't decrease, but increases because the people are barred from defending themselves.
Haystacks, I believe that most of our Navy was Stationed at Pearl Harbor but several of our larger battleships and carriers had been sent on a spur of the moment mission to the Phillipines hours before the attack. This saved a significant amount of our Navy by mere chance. I believe this is correct.
To blunt. The obvious rebuttal to this is what is the population difference in those countries. Other objective questions would be; did the person reporting this have a motive (obviously), what was going on in society in 2004?, what did it look like in 2003 2002 2005 2006 2007. Another point is how many of those were in relation to the drug war ie organized crime. Another point would be how many of those guns were attained illegally. Does not matter how much you restrict citezens right to bear arms because the criminals will still have them.
My point is that people with a motive which the CAGV obviously has are not necessarily a valid location for objective information for or against something.
Funny, Blunt doesn't trust me owning firearms but does he even flinch if I drive four feet from him in my 6000 pound truck doing 70 mph?
I've got a much greater killing potential in the truck.
I don't even need the truck though. I'm a pretty big guy and I bet I could kill someone with my bare hands if I took a notion to do so.
I'm not interested in killing anyone but my point is that a gun is only a tool that can be used constructively or destructively. Gun crimes are not a result of guns but of the people that use them.
Now that the UK has banned guns they've had an increase in stabbings and a new campaign called "knives take lives" is under way in an effort to ban some knives in the UK.
They apparently don't realize that they have a morality problem not a problem with implements. Once they ban knives will their next campaign be "sticks and stones break bones?"
I wonder if these proponents of gun bans know that if they succeed they will effectively be killing me? I am very determined that the government will not take my guns from me and I will defend my property with my life.
Excellent post. Being a C.J. major, I concur with your analysis. Neither firearms nor firearm laws can be said to cause violent crime. Many pro-gun advocates make the mistake of associating correlation with effect. Of course, anti-gun laws do make self-defense a lot harder for law abiding citizens.
I think the most compelling factor for violent crime is economics itself, although it cannot be said to be the cause. Drug gangs, for example, are typically formed in poor neighborhoods, where the incentive to enter an illegal yet profitable business is high, and the motivation to kill for that business is higher. Whether the poverty in such neighborhoods is due to government intervention or not is another subject altogether, but I will say that people don't usually plan to be poor in the first place.
Yes, punish crime. I even suggest increased sentences for crimes commited with firearms because those criminals are eroding our freedom.
As for the US Navy, I'm pretty sure the few carriers we had were out doing exercises when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor. So they were all our Pacific fleet had left. Those brave men on those carriers and support vessels faced incredible odds and stopped the Japanese at Coral Sea and Midway to prevent invasions of Australia and Hawaii. Perhaps a few of them are still alive, although very old. God bless them.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
