[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: The Assault on Self-Defense! The Assault on Self-Defense! By Doug Hagin (09/28/05) The debate over gun control is decades old, it is also going to continue to rage on for decades to come. For many who do not really take sides or think the debate is just another partisan political fight which does not effect them, there is a new shining example of how there is no escaping this debate. The issue of gun control does indeed affect all of us. It does not matter if you own no guns or 100 guns. Whether or not you are a member of the National Rifle Association or the type of person who would never feel comfortable owning a gun matters not. The real essence of the battle between gun control advocates and gun rights advocates is not over guns. In the end, it is all about the right for you and me to defend ourselves. Now on the surface this might seem a stretch. Consider however the most important aspect of gun ownership. The ability to protect your property, loved ones. The ability to defend your very life. There is no more essential and basic human right than the right to self-defense. Without this right, your right to live feely, speak or write freely, or live as you choose are meaningless. Seven years ago, I came face to face with a masked man in an alley as I left work. He had a gun and a desire to do me no good! What if the gun control advocates had their way? How would I have fared that night? Considering that, I was cornered and unable to flee, or face my assailant on equal terms I might not be writing this at all. I might very well be a statistic. Fortunately, for me the laws in Texas DO allow its residents to be armed. I was able, although cornered to have an equal footing. Because I was armed, and prepared, my attacker decided that his intentions were not worth dealing with my Colt.45. One criminal running away and one innocent, law-abiding citizen safe seems like a pretty good end does it not. Not according to gun control advocates. According to their desires, I should have been forced to run instead of facing down the miscreant criminal. Got that? If you are minding your own business and are assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gin control crowd wants the onus to be on you to flee, or retreat, or do anything EXCEPT stand your ground with a firearm. How morally and intellectually backwards can these folks be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control. Forget the gun control advocates impassioned pleas for a “safer” nation. Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans have proven to decrease violent crime time and again. It is not violent crime the gun control advocates have issue with. It is, instead, the right for us to defend ourselves. For some definitive evidence of this consider a recently passed law in Florida that allows citizens to stand their ground and use deadly force when assaulted on the street or any other location other than their home. Gun control advocates were incensed that such a law could pass. In their ideology you, the law-abiding must run, even if it puts you at greater risk, rather than use your gun to stop the criminal who is trying to rob, rape, or kill you or your family. Now the state of Michigan is following Florida’s lead. They are trying to pass a law, which closely mirrors the Florida statute. Want to take a guess who is trying to prevent the passage of this law, which respects the right to self-defense? Try the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, headed by gun grabber Sarah Brady. In short, the Michigan law would remove the requirement that people being attacked must retreat before responding with deadly force. It would allow people who feel threatened, even in a public area, to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without facing criminal or civil prosecution. Seems like a common sense of legislation doesn’t it? Not to the anti self-defense crowd on the left though. Consider for a moment some of the comments by these folks. "There are a lot more guns on the street and then you're going to get the right to use them willy-nilly? That doesn't bode real well," This, of course, is the same tired argument Sarah Brady has always used to oppose concealed carry laws. If Americans carry guns, they go nuts and shoot everything that moves. Nothing could be further removed from reality! Over 30 states have concealed carry laws and those states have gotten MORE not LESS safe! Now consider this quote from Shikha Hamilton, who heads the Michigan chapter of Million Mom March. "The scariest part is that you're removing the duty to retreat. That's really there to preserve life," said Hamilton. "And if you take someone's life you should have to answer to the police. ... No one is in jail right now for protecting their family." Got that my friends? YOU the innocent should have to run, lest you defend yourself and harm a criminal! Moreover, if you dare harm a violent felon YOU should face prison time! Once more how backwards and morally retarded are the gun control zealots? They want to punish those who defend their lives!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||