Right-to-Carry Laws and the Thune-Vitter Amendment

Right to Carry vs. Gun Control photo c/o freerepublic.com

Right to Carry vs. Gun Control photo c/o freerepublic.com

From an excellent blog by Scott J. Bach, blogger for www.blog.nj.com on the Right-to-Carry, published July 21, 2009. 

In an era where vicious criminal predators prey upon the weak and vulnerable, the U.S. Supreme Court has surprisingly held that police owe no duty to protect individual citizens and cannot be held accountable when they fail to do so. This means that from the time you dial 911 until the police arrive, you’re on your own. Right-to-Carry helps level the playing field in the gravest extreme, and offers victims a fighting chance while they wait for help to arrive.

Approximately 40 states comprehend this simple truth and recognize the Right-to-Carry. Wherever Right-to-Carry laws have passed, there has been a corresponding and sustained drop in violent crime rates, for one simple reason: criminals go somewhere else when they think their victims may be armed. When the predators can’t tell the difference between the lions and the sheep, the whole flock is safer. Right-to-Carry thus benefits not only the law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights, but also those around them who don’t.

Think about it: every mass killing in recent memory has had one thing in common: the victims were unarmed and unable to defend themselves against violent and brutal surprise attacks by predators. Right-to-Carry helps even out the odds, and criminals know it. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment expands Right-to-Carry and will enhance public safety, contrary to Governor Corzine’s ill-advised view. It recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines.

New Jersey’s policies on gun rights are as backwards as its policies on taxes. It’s time for elected officials who swore to uphold the Constitution to stop trampling on our protected gun rights.

For the whole article from blog.nj.com, click here.

Advertisements

Self-Defense—A Human Right

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?

mother-childrenI 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.

Human Rights c/o osocio.org

Human Rights c/o osocio.org

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. 

waterFor example, there is a state in our nation (Colorado) that has claimed all rain water for itself.  Citizens (not subjects) are literally BANNED from collecting any rain water.  This is a “law.”  And yet it is unacceptable.  A state government cannot claim that which falls from the sky to the ground to be its property.  Rain is for the benefit of all and is the owner of Him who provides it and none else.  I would definitely defy such a preposterous law were I a citizen there.

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.

Second part.

self-defense-kitchen-knifeIf 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.