Self-defense is the right of a free people

[MikePapa1]

Self-defense is the right of a free people

OUR VOICE

By The Record Editorial Staff

Published: January 11, 2011

» 1 Comment | Post a Comment

vote

now

Buzz up! The notion that American citizens who defend themselves against violence is “taking the law into their own hands†is reprehensible palaver.

There is no legal, moral or constitutional obligation in the United States to be a victim.

We have heard this un-American statement often since the mass murder and assassination attempt in Arizona.

As a free people, we have empowered ourselves to defend ourselves, individually and collectively.

There are those who opt for strict non-violence, even in the face of grave danger to themselves and others, on religious grounds.

So be it. That is their right.

Refusing to be a victim, even if it means offering deadly force in the gravest circumstances, is an individual choice, too, but it is one we may make in America.

We are not required to go as sheep to the slaughter.

In jurisdictions such as North Carolina, one may obtain a concealed carry permit for firearms. To get such a permit, the state essentially certifies the permittee as crime-free — the result of an extensive background check and a thorough application and educational process.

That being said, we’re not sure that going around armed is the ideal solution for members of Congress.

We suggest that security for a public figure who may be a target is better managed by others whose best weapon is the power of observation, honed by training.

A public official in a public location may not have the same advantage as a homeowner, motorist or pedestrian.

It is noteworthy that the attempted murder of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has prompted several members of Congress to declare they will arm themselves.

While that may not be the most effective tactic in a crowd during a surprise attack, as was the assault in Arizona, we do not regard their attitude as taking the law into their own hands.

It’s preferable to the knee-jerk reaction of the anti-gun crowd that wants to put more restrictions on self-defense.

The threat is not from the law-abiding armed citizen, but the thugs who don’t pay attention to the law.

A gun automatically places a great amount of responsibility on the owner. That’s why we like the way North Carolina’s concealed carry permit is constructed.

We also believe that public figures should thoroughly evaluate their security needs and plan accordingly.

A gun isn’t for everyone, simply because everyone is different.

But we will not chide people for defending themselves and taking steps to be secure in their person.

It’s their constitutional right.

Self-defense is the right of a free people | Hickory Daily Record

Great editorial. I enjoyed it and thought you might, as well.

[Guest Bronker]

Good post, "Mike":cool:

I'm hoping we hear much from the congressmen resorting to arms for their individual defense, on a national level.

[Oh Shoot]

...I'm hoping we hear much from the congressmen resorting to arms for their individual defense, on a national level.

I'm guessing that the only real change might be that Congress will allow themselves to carry in DC. But only themselves.

- OS

[mikegideon]

The thing that has amazed me through this whole mess is the total lack of discussion about armed security. They would rather disarm the population.

[mikegideon]

I'm guessing that the only real change might be that Congress will allow themselves to carry in DC. But only themselves.

- OS

Well, they are very special people. That's why it's totally acceptable to take rights away from all the peasants to make them a little safer (in their feeble minds).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Mike, they already have armed security available on request, from what I heard. At least

I heard that on Fox one night.

That's a good article, MikePapa1!

I really think the Heath Shulers are primarily posturing politically to make themselves

into pro-gunners or to confirm to the public they are pro-gun. One or the other, not that

it's a bad thing. I just hope they vote the right way, when the time comes.

[mikegideon]

Mike, they already have armed security available on request, from what I heard. At least

I heard that on Fox one night.

That's a good article, MikePapa1!

I really think the Heath Shulers are primarily posturing politically to make themselves

into pro-gunners or to confirm to the public they are pro-gun. One or the other, not that

it's a bad thing. I just hope they vote the right way, when the time comes.

Then why don't they use it??? If I ever vote for a Democrat again, you need to shoot my ass with your favorite Glock. I'll even leave a note that you had permission.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Aww, you know I wouldn't do that. Would be tempting, though.

I imagine they won't be doing as many public appearances. Remember those ridiculous

town hall meetings during the health care? Old Arlen Specter and several others like

some of our TN delegation kinda crapped out on them after a while. They didn't want

to hear what we thought. They will probably be doing "GoToMyPC" town halls in the future

anyway.

[leroy]

Thanks for posting this great article!

leroy

[eapking]

If the Secret Service could not prevent Reagan's shooting....?

[Guest BEARMAN]

It's nigh on impossible to stop a lunatic, or a determined assasin, out to do harm to good people.

However, a handgun, in the hands of a trained citizen, is the most effective individual tool used to accomplish that thankless task.

Courage to use it, is another.

Great post, and thanks for sharing.

-Bearman

[DaveTN]

I have long argued that I have a right to carry a gun and protect myself, and that right does not come from the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment.

Argue the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> all you like, but the Federal government cannot and will not ever pass federal law that allows people to carry. And the SCOTUS will never override States Rights to allow the Feds to do so.

We have a right to keep and bear arms. It is an inalienable right and should be self-evident. We need all states to recognize this.

However…. Having been arrested for no crime other than having a gun in my car in Illinois, I am absolutely sure that most states do not recognize the right to bear arms (Tennessee included) no matter where it comes from.

[leroy]

Daves post above ^^^^ is exactly right. We happen to live in a country that (...for the time being....) has a law called the Second Amendment that started out protecting the right to arms. We also have the fundamental right to self defense and defense of those around us (...for the time being...). All this has been hijacked by polititians, lawyers, and judges of various stripes over the years in an attempt to curb this right or to outright disarm the population. This disarming has succeeded in large part in the large northeastern and midwestern population centers that are overrun with machine polititians, demigogues, those on the dole, and folks that evidently like being treated like serfs and told what to do.

As Dave says, you need to decide for yourselves whether you are a serf or not; and whether you want to be controlled by a bunch of statist or not. Remember the old limeric: "...Those who beat their weapons into plowshares with plow for those who dont...". That's exactly what has happened in every totalitarian government in the world. A disarmed populace moves quickly from being citizens to being serfs and slaves. Remember, the state of Tennessee (...along with other states, countys, and muncipalities with the ability to make or controvert law...) is simply easing up on the restrictions to a right that has always been there from a ethical and constitutional perspective. That "easing up" is anything but benelovent. It is simply allowing a right that has already been there.

Having said all these unkind things; I'm glad we live in a state like Tennessee where this "easing up" is going on; but I have no illusion that somehow the "light of the Lord" and "rightdoing by polititians" has caused it. While we may temporarily enjoy a majority of those in the statehouse that see things the way that we do; we are always just one election from folks like Jimmy Nafeh and congressman Cohen, who see things quite differently. Right now, the political class is afraid to tighten this stuff up because of the mood of the citizenry.

It is possible for them to become more bold as politics and national events change. Remember what happened after the assassinations of JFK and RFK.

Like that great Tennesseean Davey Crocket said: "...Keep your powder dry..." and as our great Tennesseean Dave is advocating; "...your weapon at the ready....". If you do that, you will not become a victim or a serf.

Food for thought.

leroy

[enfield]

I doubt many members of Congress could pass a criminal background check.

[Guest Bronker]

I doubt many members of Congress could pass a criminal background check.

SNAP!

[Worriedman]

If the Secret Service could not prevent Reagan's shooting....?

Michael Corleone to Tom Hagan in The Godfather II:

"If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone."

It is simply a line from a movie, but I think it is true, similar to the "death and taxes" thing. Because a single disturbed individual can get past the Secret Service, does not mean we should turn over the ability to rape, murder and pillage at whim without the means to contest it, if there remains a will to do so.