By Kellene Bishop
Last night I was asked a question by one of my readers on my Emergency Preparedness blog, Preparedness Pro. Although this question was asked by a citizen of England, in which possession of a firearm and essentially any weapon of any kind is forbidden, I still believe his question has merit for our Women of Caliber readers also. The question posed to me in the most basic of terms is what would I do if I lived in such a state?
I wonder what a mother would tell me if I told her that she does not have the right to protect her children. What would your reaction be if there were a “law” passed telling parents that they are required to allow their children to immerse themselves in whatever is on television or their computer or in their video games without ever being permitted to give any parental input to “defend” them from anything negative they are exposed to.
Now, let’s take a citizen of England, for example. They are forbidden from possessing a firearm, pepper spray, knives that would be obviously used for self-defense, billy clubs, etc. The penalty is 5 years in prison. Recently in Australia, a farmer was imprisoned for shooting a burglar—IN HIS HOME—as the result of the views of self-defense there.
What would you do if for some reason you were forbidden from using valuable tools to protect you and your loved ones and were left solely to the use of your physical abilities for self-defense?
For me, it’s a relatively simple response with two parts.
First of all, let’s be perfectly clear that there is a huge difference between a RIGHT and a CIVIL LIBERTY. Inherent human rights can NOT be given and taken away by man regardless of what title or position the world may give him. Human rights are only to be protected and preserved by man. A person can write something down, have “men” vote on it, and then CALL it a “law,” but if it is in opposition to human rights, then it cannot be considered a law. Just because a man (or group thereof) establishes a procedure and labels it a law, does not make it such. And it certainly does not make the law right. No law can undo any of your inherent rights as a human being. Just because individuals are willing to accept such a “law,” and just because men or women may forcibly be put into prison for breaking such a “law,” does not make it a law. It just makes it a persuasive argument–even though a seriously flawed one. It is merely an attempt to squelch a human right and hope that all will submit to such a position.
In my opinion, no man can take away a right that God has given. We have a right to breathe. We have a right to benefit from all that God has given us. And we “sure as shooting” have a right to defend ourselves, our family, and our property from harm. No man can take that right away from you. Any attempt to take away from a person the right for them to appropriately defend themselves is unacceptable. Only YOU can ignore an inherent human right or refuse to acknowledge it, but that does not surrender it. Human rights are not even our own to surrender. They are infinitely a part of us. To attempt to surrender them only states that one is willing to be a subject or a slave. In other words, they willfully acquiesce to such a state. Unfortunately, when too many people surrender their unalienable human rights in this manner, it gives the impression that a governmental opinion is “law” regardless of reality.
To summarize the first part of my response, if a human right is infringed upon, then it is the responsibility of the citizens to correct that wrong. It may require a heavy price. But in my opinion, no price is too heavy to pay in order to recognize and embrace all of our human rights. The ability for every person to defend themselves, regardless of their level of physical fitness, bank account balance, or occupation is indeed a right.
If a person elects to subject themselves to such a preposterous position—that they aren’t allowed to possess effective self-defense tools in order to even the playing field against themselves and a criminal—then additional knowledge is required. You want to be sure to become familiar with how to expertly use alternative items which are not defined as “weapons” such as a kitchen knife, a golf club, etc. A can of air deodorizer or hair spray and a cigarette lighter can go a long way to defend yourself.
The success of self-defense doesn’t begin in the moment of an attack. Successful self-defense has everything to do with the preparation. Protecting and preserving such a right against unlawful infringement is one of your best defenses. I come from a long line of revolutionaries. This particular nation exists with a shred of freedom because of them. Personally, I’m a wholehearted believer in paying a price for FREEDOM of all mankind and I firmly believe that such can only be ensured if all mankind is openly “permitted” to defend themselves, anywhere, anytime, and in any way most appropriate for the situation.
Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.
Filed under: firearms / guns, human rights violations, politics, second amendment, self defense, weapons | Tagged: against the law, australia, civil liberty, defend, emergency preparedness, england, freedom, god given rights, government, human right, human rights, law, politics, preparedness pro, protect, rain, rainwater, self defense, unarmed survival, weapons of opportunity |