If I pose a threat to you- then you should work passionately to disarm me!


I’m absolutely sick to my stomach over the vilification and denigration of those of us who defend our God given right to self defense.

First I found myself under attack at, of all place, my local chamber board meeting! Next- a dear friend sent a link to post written by an associate of his that directly challenges the character and intentions of those of us who defend the right to bear arms.

Jordan Chariton writes in Hypervocal.com:

“I’ve found it maddening as gun rights advocates wrap themselves around ‘protecting the Second Amendment’ instead of protecting our kids. Although the NRA and a lot of Republicans would like you to think differently, every last word and amendment from both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is not hard and fast.”  Read more at http://bit.ly/XtYCCv

He goes on to cite several examples of the Constitution being usurped- though I’m not sure if he’s making his argument or mine.

I am extremely grateful Chariton makes this a Constitutional issue. Sadly, this is the component missing from most debates on gun regulations. I’ll return to that point, but first…

“The NRA and its followers continue citing “the right to protect themselves” from home intruders, and out of some loonier mouths “government coming to their doors and taking their guns.” The truth is, the NRA does not care about the safety of our children or the safety of a family trying to protect themselves from intruders. If they did, they would adjust their position based on the overwhelming pattern of what is killing people in America.”

Jordan, to your first point:

Home invasion is one of the few areas of crime that continues to rise despite an overall decline in both violent crimes and violence involving firearms. In my debate with a colleague at my chamber meeting, she also opined that those of use who own handguns to defend our homes should be evaluated to assess our mental well-being.

From “The Women’s Self-Defense Institute:”

“According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes.”

The average criminal spends about 10 minutes in your home. For people living in rural areas, response times can expand to as much as an hour leaving a family undefended for nearly 50 minutes- unless they defend themselves.

I can assure you, Jordan, that if you lived next door to me and I knew you were being assaulted by a violent criminal intent on doing you or your family harm, you would not have to wait 10 or more minutes for the police to arrive. I would gladly risk my life to come to your defense.

As to the accusation that “the NRA does not care about the safety of our children,” and it’s clear from Chariton’s narrative that this unfeeling attitude is shared by the rest of us gun totting radicals, well Jordan, you’re just plain wrong.

The NRA promotes and teaches responsible gun ownership and safety. I can tell you from personal experience that NRA instructors are adamant in their classes about furthering this mission.

Contrast that with the hypocritical outcry from actors and celebrities who “demand a plan” while continuing to profit by producing ever more violent movies, programs and games that continue to glamorize extreme violence and vengeance and turn outlaws into cult action heroes.

The profile of mass murderers almost universally includes a fascination with violent entertainment, particularly action movies and first-person shooter games. While the jury is still out on whether this type of entertainment can cause violence in and of itself, there is little disagreement that violent entertainment has a direct negative affect on an already unstable mind- particularly if that mind is still young and impressionable.

The fact is that NRA members are not your problem. In fact, the NRA and other 2nd Amendment advocates do in fact support several reasonable measures that would have a meaningful impact on keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness. These proposals include universal background checks, background checks on gun shop owners and a minimum federal standard for concealed weapons permitting.

I speak for many who feel as I do when I say I care deeply about the safety of children- and those who are unable or choose not to defend themselves. This is why I own and carry firearms.

This is also why I volunteer to work with incarcerated youths. Our system has not failed- many parents have. For whatever reasons, we have tens of thousands of young people who grow up without positive parental guidance and influence. They grow up isolated, without discipline and without a sense of personal responsibility. They blame others for their conditions and circumstances and justify their crimes and violence on that basis.

I can tell you from listening to these kids that if they want to hurt you- the choice of weapon is unimportant. I can tell you that if they want what’s in your medicine cabinet, you are nothing more than an object in their way.

If you want the current decline in violent crime to continue. If you want to prevent violence as much as possible- reach out to these kids and give them a positive influence in their lives.

Chariton also says:

“Adhering to every last misinterpreted provision of a 225-year-old document written by slave owners is far less important than protecting our children from death by bazooka gun.”

Now let’s get to the heart of the matter.

Yes, Jordan, the founders made compromises in their time. Let’s avoid the juxtaposed contextual difficulties of the argument and stick with the facts.

Constitution and Declaration of Independence on Grungy Betsy Ross FlagThe founders crafted a document and a system of law that would protect freedom and liberty- from the abuse of a tyrannical central authority. Yes- slavery would continue for some time, but many of those who drafted the Constitution were avowed abolitionists. That’s why although they compromised on the enforcement issue to preserve the newborn United States, they would not compromise on the language.

Read the letters of Franklin, Jefferson and Madison and you’ll find the entire context of these compromises. You’ll also find that what they understood above all was that by creating, for the first time in human history, a government that would give the law the pre-eminent position over any individual leader or a compact of ruling elite, that any inequities would be resolved by the people over time.

It was their hope that these inequities could be resolved without bloodshed; through reason and through continued self-governance.

Their greatest fear was that this experiment would not last. They feared that the People would not participate fully in self-governance, that individual rights would be threatened by strong central authority and that, as Jefferson articulated, another revolution may be necessary in the future.

And to that end, the 2nd Amendment was crafted.

You cannot defend life and liberty without arms. This is not a utopian world. As long as there are criminals and tyrants there will be a need for self-defense.

If you support the Constitutional defense of life and liberty, you cannot separate the Constitutional protection of the right of self-defense.

You rightly and accurately quote the Constitution when you wrote:

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Remember- the Constitution was written to restrict the actions of government, not to subvert the inalienable rights of the People.

No- the slaves were not freed as soon as they scribed “all Men are created equal.” But the foundation and justification for emancipation was set.

No- the 1st Amendment does not protect your actions when you yell “fire” in a crowded theater. That’s because while certain rights are inalienable, meaning they are natural rights and not granted by any human authority, no right is unlimited. You abdicate any right- even unalienable rights, when your actions infringe on the rights of others.

The 2nd Amendment stand is crucial precisely because many people think, as Jordan seems to indicate, that the Constitution is vestigial. We will agree on the point that this “225-year-old document written by slave owners” has been and continues to be widely misinterpreted. On second thought, I’d argue that the Constitution has been purposely re-interpreted to serve specific political interests throughout history.

Misinterpretation and abuse are no reasons to disregard the Constitution. This should awaken our passion to preserve it- and to return to it’s original intent and value which is, above all, to assure individual freedom and liberty.

Our framers understood the that the greatest threat to individual freedom comes from two major aggressors:

  1. A tyrannical central authority
  2. The mob

Contrary to popular believe, we do not live or govern by majority rule. No majority can deprive you of your fundamental rights at the ballot box. The onerous process of amending the Constitution is a safeguard against any confederation of citizens, majority or minority, from denying any individual right- especially in the heat of a highly charged emotional debate.

I am armed. I am trained in the use of firearms and tactics. I accept full personal responsibility for my own safety and defense. I commit myself to the protection of others. I take my responsibilities as an armed citizen very seriously.

If I pose a threat to you then you should work passionately to disarm me and others like me.

If you choose to do so, the burden is yours. Yes, Jordan, “every last word and amendment from both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution” is supposed to be “hard and fast.” That’s what protects from the rule of the mob or the whim of the tyrant.

If you want to disarm American citizens, your only option is to amend the Constitution- not to use Congress as a weapon to infringe my natural right to defend myself as I see fit.

Of course, that’s a tougher fight!


Want to see what happens when you adopt a total gun ban? It can’t happen here, right? Watch this…


About jimbouchard

Martial arts transformed Jim’s self-perception from former drug abuser and failure to successful entrepreneur and Black Belt. As a speaker and author of Amazon bestseller Think Like a Black Belt, Jim tours nationally presenting his philosophy of Black Belt Mindset for corporate and conference audiences. He's a regular guest on TV and radio programs including FOX News, BBC Worldview and FOX Across America. View all posts by jimbouchard

8 responses to “If I pose a threat to you- then you should work passionately to disarm me!

  • piblogger

    As I read your article Jim, it once again reemphasizes the complexity of the issue.

    To start, and focusing on the Constitutional aspects of the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution as Jefferson implied, Lincoln enacted and Justice Robert H. Jackson verbalized, is not a suicide pact.

    Specifically, “a strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

    The question to which this leads is quite simply what is in the best interests of the citizenry of the United States of America when it comes to the Right To Bear Arms?

    In my interview with WAGV President Laurie Saffian she asserted that 74% of all NRA members support the very positions that her group is advocating such as thorough background checks and better enforcement of existing laws including the closure of the gun show loophole as it is called. This also supports your position Jim that NRA members are responsible and conscientious.

    It also makes me wonder who the NRA leadership actually represents. Is it really their membership (the people) or gun manufacturers? I think that it is the latter.

    And history tells us that corporations such as gun manufacturers have no loyalty to the people nor do they salute a banner other than profitability – think of those American companies who made money selling weapons to the enemy in past wars?

    So the debate isn’t really about the best interests of We The People, but We The Corporations.

    So here is the kicker, and this is coming from someone who has never owned a gun nor ever had the desire to do so, I believe that the people must continue to bear arms. Not as a means of self-defense because has countless studies have shown very few even if they have access to a gun will be able to thwart an attacker, but as a means of keeping the delicate balance between the people’s interest and the corporations interests in check.

    You see government by and large is influenced and to a certain extent controlled by corporations. And if corporations feel that it is in their best interests to support democracy they will do so. However, and as we learned from Operation Ajax, if democracy infringes upon profitability then the latter will almost always carry the day.

    In this regard, if an armed public no longer represented the best interests of the corporate world then you can be certain that the government will indeed – much as they did with the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran, move towards disarmament.

    The real question that everyone is missing is whose best interests does disarmament serve and why now? Once you answer that question the picture will become infinitely clearer.

    What I find ironic is that this ultimately ties-back into the 2nd Amendment which states: “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.”

    I think the country’s forefathers knew more than we give them credit for.

    • jimbouchard

      Jon- you strike at the true heart of the matter in your last statement. The Framers were extremely farsighted- but they were also responding to a real threat that was, in their time, their first concern. That threat was unchecked political power and tyranny.

      Since that time, there have been numerous incidents of political tyranny. Most Americans- and Canadians, cannot and will not accept the reality of such a position. You need only look toward the recent past for examples including the 3rd Reich and the Soviet Union. In our time tyranny reigns in China, North Korea and arguably several of the Muslim nations.

      In every one of these regimes, the citizenry is disarmed.

      Mao famously said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” as he defeated, exiled, murdered and disarmed his opposition.

      Lenin said One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” He cleverly armed his supporters while restricting not only arms for other citizens, but by stripping the citizens of the emerging Soviet Union of nearly every individual right we preserve as unalienable. The very people who carried arms to bring the Communists to power had those very guns turned against them to strip them of every fundamental freedom…

      …in the name, of course, of fairness and equality.

      If this fairness is so precious, why do some feel it can only be secured by force?

      You are right in that there have been times that current laws have been challenged, changed, and dare I say- “amended?”

      Alterations to the Constitution were purposely designed to be onerous. That’s because the U.S. Constitution was the first document to codify the rights of individuals over the interests of the State and the mob.

      If the People want to change it- so be it. But change it legally. If you want to restrict or “infringe” the right to bear arms, or eliminate it altogether, do so through the Constitutional process.

      Without that process- there is no law.

      • piblogger

        Now here is another interesting question Jim . . . in Canada we have stricter gun laws and by and large are not a gun carrying people. Why is that we do not feel the potential threat of an absolute power corrupts absolutely government threat? Is the contentiousness and big brother fears relating to gun control a uniquely American phenomenon?

  • Jordan Chariton

    Jim-I so appreciate you reading and responding to my piece. Although, I disagree with a lot of your views, it is refreshing to have an intelligent disagreement rather than the vitriolic ones you see to often on cable news and radio.

    I wish I could respond with an as thorough and detailed reasoning as you…to be honest, I just don’t have the time this weekend. So, I will go through a few of your points and provide my coutnerpoints:

    One of the biggest things I agree with you on is when you said:

    No- the 1st Amendment does not protect your actions when you yell “fire” in a crowded theater. That’s because while certain rights are inalienable, meaning they are natural rights and not granted by any human authority, no right is unlimited. You abdicate any right- even unalienable rights, when your actions infringe on the rights of others.No right is unlimited. You abdicate any right- even unalienable rights, when your actions infringe on the rights of others.

    I think you indirectly made my point. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but my column did not call for a nationwide ban on any and all guns. I have zero issue with people like you owning a handgun or pistol for home protection or recreational hunting. But you’re right, no right is unlimited. That is my point with assault rifles. The second amendment said “the right to bear arms.” It does not specify what type of arms or give a blanket to any and all arms in distribution.

    No one, especially me, is infringing on you or an NRA members right to bear arms. We are calling for the ban on UNLIMITED and UNREASONABLE arms that both army colonels (Gen. McChrystal) and a miriad of law enforcement experts have said have no reasonable or earthly place in environments other than the military. And if you go through interviews since Newtown on tv as well as the Senate hearing, there is not one person who was able to give an explanation on what a civilian needs an AR-19 assault rifle for….not one. As you said, no right is unlimited, and in terms of the second amendment, the arms it refers to is not unlimited, particularly as you said “when your actions infringe on the rights of others.” Forgetting the Constitution for a second, I would hope we can all agree that as humans, we have the right to go about our daily lives, including going to school or the movies, with a chance at safety and security. When certain arms, mostly assault rifles, cause such massive loss of life, they are undoubtedly infringing on the rights and lives of others.

    • jimbouchard

      Jordan, I appreciate and respect your argument, but again I do not find much agreement.

      The “you can’t cry fire in a crowded theater” argument makes my point, not yours.

      That quotation is attributed to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes writing on the Court’s decision to uphold the Espionage Act of 1917 in the case of Schenk v. United States.

      Schenk’s crime? He was passing out leaflets asking people to resist the draft which was imposed to conscript U.S. citizens to fight in what would become the first World War.

      That is exactly the kind of abuse of interpretation I’m speaking out against. The 1st Amendment does not give any citizen the right to harm another- that is not the intent behind protecting free speech in any form.

      The 1st Amendment, like the 2nd, is a limitation on government authority, not a restriction against the People.

      For people who may never have read it:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      CONGRESS shall make no law. Since the legislative power rests solely in the Congress- the federal government is prohibited from making laws that “abridge the freedom of speech.”

      It is obvious from Schenk v. U.S. and many other cases that an activist court can and often does just that- and those cases go largely unchallenged by any Congress or President.

      The 2nd Amendment need not specify what type of arms can or should be restricted. The language is purposeful and clear:

      “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.”

      As the framers intended, there is absolutely NO ambiguity in that statement.

      Once again, it is the Court and Congress as well as individual State governments that have circumvented the Constitution by using legislative and judicial processes to limit “the right of the people.”

      One argument that holds some merit is that “the people” act through the legislative process, and the right to express their wishes through the lawmaking process is valid.

      The problem there is that again you must remember that the Constitution was created specifically to define and restrict the power of the federal government and assure and protect the rights of the people. If you want ANY restrictions on firearms, that restriction requires a Constitutional process, not a legislative one.

      Without that process, the rights of the individual mean nothing- and ironically, federal authority is weakened, not strengthened. That is the ultimate tragedy as the one area in which strong federal authority is necessary and appropriate is in the protection of individual freedom and liberty- our rights.

      It is strength in THIS area that allowed and justified the elimination of slavery you point to in your original article. The “exception” of slavery in opposition to our unalienable right to freedom simply could not stand the test of time.

      Today the debate centers on gun rights. There are others festering in the background.

      Is the “establishment” clause in respect to religion meaningless if a majority of Americans decide that creationism should be taught over evolution in our public schools?

      Is “freedom of the press” limited to traditionally recognized print media giving the federal government authority to restrict and limit our free expression online?

      And how about one important area that affected your wonderful city of New York…

      Does “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” mean that Occupy Movement demonstrators can take over your private property to protest government policy? Does the government have the privilege of ignoring your request to expel demonstrators from private property leaving you to defend said property yourself?

      Without weapons…

      We are at a crossroads- will we continue to value the rights of a free people above the ruling authority of a political body? Or- will we trade that freedom for the convenience of a central authority that will monitor and regulate every aspect of our daily lives.

      The specific issues that interest us change, but the fundamental problem remains the through line…

      We either start upholding the Constitution, or we abandon it.

      The limitations on type of weapon, magazine capacity, etc. are exactly the type of overstep of federal authority I’m defending. The government has NO right to dictate to me what type of weapon, ammunition or capacity I desire to protect myself…

      …as long as I am a law abiding citizen who had not done anything to abdicate or surrender my rights.

      Prohibition of ownership and permitting for felons and violent criminals is NOT an infringement on personal rights. When you commit crimes or act in a manner that threatens or violates the rights of others- it is fully within the rights of the People, acting through their government, to restrict your rights, restrain and detain you if necessary.

      To make the point, I’ll take the argument to the extreme…

      Just the other day someone asked me if the government should allow people to own tanks. She then asked me if I would want to own one.

      Putting aside the obvious problems with fuel efficiency and the fact that I have no place to park one- the government really has no Constitutional authority to keep me from owning one…

      …as long as I don’t use it to threaten my fellow citizens.

      As soon as I even whisper that I may blow up my neighbor because his dog is keeping me up at night, I surrender my right to possess said tank, and maybe even my right to possess a BB gun.

      Now for your second post…

  • Jordan Chariton

    For you to say the “NRA and other 2nd Amendment advocates do in fact support several reasonable measures that would have a meaningful impact on keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness. These proposals include universal background checks, background checks on gun shop owners and a minimum federal standard for concealed weapons permitting.” You are simply misinformed. NRA members and 2nd amendment advocated might support background checks…THE NRA DOES NOT. There Executive Director said so at this weeks Senate hearing. It is things like the NRA not supporting reasonable bipartisan recmmendations like background checks that would make one (me) think they don’t care about the safety of our children…if they did, why not make sure every person buying a gun has to pass a rigorous background check for both criminal and mentral health history?

    Third- you use the phrase “Disarm American citizens.” Jim, I think you are a nice guy, but you are parenoid. NOBODY, including the federal government, is trying to disarm you or 2nd amendment advocated. The proposed laws are not a ban on all and every gun. It is a ban on certain types of guns. You will be free to have the same guns in your home that you already have, and so will every other American…except military assault rifles that are not meant for protection or recreational use…they are meant to kill as many people as humanly possibe. And that comes from army colonels, not me. This disturbed paranoia about “government trying to disarm you” is really just Glenn Beck type talk meant to rile people up and get ratings…it is not based in reality.

    Fourth-you say “”Congress as a weapon to infringe my natural right to defend myself as I see fit.” The second amendment does not say “the right to bear arms AS YOU SEE FIT shall not be infringed.” I think that is the mistake you and other 2nd amendment advocated are making in this debate. As I mentioned earlier, no right is unlimited, including the right to bear arms. The second amendment is not a blanket amendment that allows you to use any and all guns that “you see fit.” You’re right to bear arms is not being infringed…you still can bear arms for protection or recreational use…the proposed law and my column says to stop misusing the second amendment as a universal ok for any type of gun you want…it is just not what the second amendment says or allows. It is what the NRA and it’s followers want it to mean.

    Lastly-I think this mental health thing the NRA and gun rights advocates are citing is a red herring. Ofcourse there are mentally ill people in this country, and ofcourse all of these shooters have been mentally ill. The bottomline is, there is no improvements to the mental health system in this country that will prevent every mentally ill and deranged person from carrying out violence. That is a pipe dream…the country is too big, and not you or I or enough psychologists in the world can be in every home and monitor how every parent is raising their kids, and monitor how every teen or young adult is feeling. Can there be improvements to the mental health system, to make sure the Adam Lanza’s of the world are A. flagged as mentally ill B. treated earlier and C. kept away from firearms…ofcourse. But that does not change the facts….assault rifles are the weapon of choice of these mentally ill people. If you ban them, could they potentially get there hands on other smaller rifles. Yes. But that doesn’t mean we should sit back and say “its the person not the gun,” so lets focus on the person and not the gun. I respect the help you have tried to give to distrubed youth…it is a very noble thing. But this is not a choice between focusing on the mentally ill and not the guns or focusing on the guns and not the mentally ill….we must do BOTH. Will banning assault rifles and improving mental health services stop every mass shooting? Ofcouse not…but I live in fact based America where I form opinions based on the patterns and the data. And the pattern and data are showing mass shootings at the movies, at schools, at offices by way of assault rifles. I’m sorry…I just don’t believe you do nothing about the guns because of a misguided and misinterpreted clining of the 2nd amendment.

  • paul bedard

    i cannot for the love of my fellow patriots agee more with the statements made here.though not perfect, the constitution, bill of rights etc. was written by man and you can always find flaws with whatever man puts on paper as all men are not perfect. that being said, it is a document that has at least laid the framework to all our undeniable rights which an out of control tyranical government of we the government, by the government by force will make you obey our illegal actions. we the people , by the people, for the people must defend what is undeniably all mens rights to defend oneself, family and neighbors . fight legally every attempt to disarm us as you will have no defense if you faulter on your duties to defend your god given rights. enough is enough. start fighting legally at your local and state levels. all states have their own constitution as well as the u.s. constitution. start saying no more government intrusion into what the states have full authority to say no to illegal federal government laws hat they ponder up because your tax dollars gave them the firepower to rule you. bless you all who defend the constitutional america, and tell the united states corporation they are done !!!

  • jimbouchard

    First I’ll address my paranoia.

    Should currently proposed legislation actually pass, the U.S. government would disarm me. Among the restrictions being proposed are limits on “semi-automatic” weapons including handguns, and restrictions on magazine capacity.

    I can almost live with the magazine restrictions- my reasoning will not comfort you.

    When I trained as a bodyguard, I became very good at dropping a mag and reloading with very little interruption in firing. If can do it- so can the bad guy. Fortunately, most of them lack the ambition to train as diligently as I did. However, the cases so many gun control advocates cite as justification for such restrictions provide the notable exceptions.

    So- limiting magazine capacity is a nice political trick to tug on American heartstrings, but does little to reduce the firepower of a motivated shooter.

    One of the restrictions proposed would eliminate the infamous “AR-15.” For the uninformed, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. The “AR” is the designation of the original manufacturer, ArmaLite.

    According to the the U.S. Army, the recognized authority on this issue:

    “Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges…

    “Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters.” (Thanks GunFax.com)

    Assault weapons have been restricted since 1986. I hear no great public outcry to lift that particular restriction, even from most hardcore gun advocates. Price alone is restrictive- the free market limits possession without federal intervention.

    Adam Lanza did not use assault weapons. He used semi-automatic weapons and advocates of firearm restrictions including Senator Dianne Feinstein are pressing for the limitation of many if not most semi-automatic weapons.

    Without getting too technical, semi-automatic refers to weapons that chamber another round without having to “pump” or otherwise manually chamber another cartridge.

    Today, most handguns carried for self-defense are either semi-automatic or “double action,” meaning the action of firing the trigger also discharges the spend cartridge and chambers another round without the added step of “cocking” a hammer, lever or pump.

    Many hunting rifles fall into the semi-automatic and double action category as well- not to open that can of worms. I don’t hunt.

    This restriction is meaningless. Any weapon in skilled hands is potentially capable of extreme destruction at incredible speeds.

    Here’s Western fast-draw expert Bob Munden displaying his skill with an old fashioned style single-action revolver…

    I’m not trying to make your argument by saying all anyone would ever need for self-defense is a single-action revolver and not the Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol I carry. What I’m saying is that if you’re making the argument that in motivated hands- any and all firearms are powerful.

    So- we should ban all guns, right? You may be measured in your response, but others are not.

    So- if I am paranoid, what am I paranoid about?

    Well- I’m not paranoid. I’m responding to very real threats to the right to bear arms that come from powerful people in the same government the 2nd Amendment was crafted to restrict:

    “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”

    ~Howard Metzenbaum

    “I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”

    ~Michael Dukakis

    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them…’Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it.”

    ~Diane Feinstein

    ” If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated”

    ~Nancy Pelosi

    “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true…”

    ~Charles Schumer

    (Thanks Quotations.com)

    The reasoned voices of government leaders sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect our unalienable rights? I think not…

    Now let’s get to the heart of the matter…

    Do restrictions on weapons really prevent crime? Well- yes and no.

    In the short term, several historical measures restricting firearms have had an impact in reducing SOME crime, especially murder by firearms. That makes sense, but it’s only part of the story.

    In the long run, nations with strict firearms restrictions usually see an increase in violent crime as criminals gain the tactical advantage in firepower. Recent increases in crime in the highly restrictive U.K. and most recently in Australia confirm this trend.

    The rate of violent crime and crimes committed with firearms continues to decline…

    “The nation’s murder rate is near a 40 year low and the number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high and rising by about 4.5 million annually.

    “Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates on the average than the rest of the country.

    “Total violent crime in Right-to-Carry States was 24% lower; murder 28% lower; robbery 50% lower and aggravated assault 11% lower.

    “The cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control.”

    ~FBI Crime Report 2007

    Latest FBI Crime Report figures confirm a continuing decline today.

    The debate over guns is masking the true problem. Despite declines in crime rates, we still have too much of it. This is not a gun issue- it’s a behavior issue. It’s a problem that starts in the home and extends to the rest of society…

    You want to reduce violence? Start with your kids. Start at home. Stop allowing kids to play violent video games. Stop buying kids tickets to violent movies produced by elitists who glorify violence for profit while calling for increased government action to prevent it.

    Read: http://thinklikeablackbelt.org/2013/01/28/stop-the-violence-start-with-discipline/

    Is it a mental health issue? Well- certainly mental health is an issue. We’ve largely dismantled our institutional mental health system. Instead of fixing legitimate abuses, with best intentions we shut the system down putting millions of mentally incompetent people on the streets.

    However- not all, in fact not even most criminals would be diagnosed as mentally ill. Even as many as half of serial killers and mass murderers would pass a test of mental competency at any given moment leading up to and following the crime.

    We have devolved into a state of ethical permissiveness and complacency in which we only respond, and then only with the most draconian measures, once we’ve reached an intolerably high threshold of pain and discomfort.

    Can we stop it all? No.

    But we can prevent an awful lot of it by simply returning to the core values of self-discipline, personal responsibility and individual accountability.

    Dare I say we need to indoctrinate our youth with these ideals- if not in the home, then in the public schools. If we’re paying for those schools- we say what’s taught in them. We cave in to political correctness when a school system wants to teach the myth of creationism over the scientific fact of evolution- it’s time to grow a pair and insist that kids who do not learn how to behave at home learn to do so in school.

    This debate is going to last quite some time. Jordan, I thank you sincerely for engaging in a rational and respectful discussion. It is my hope that others will benefit from our dialog and that our example of respectful debate will extend into the coming months.

    Best Thoughts!

    PS…A final thought- know your enemy:

    “Gun Control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety Locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”

    Sammy “the Bull” Gravano

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: