The Morality
of Gun Control
What do gun control
advocates really say?
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
Copyright and reprint
permissions explained below.
Click here
for printer version.
“Listen or thy tongue will keep thee
deaf.”
–American Indian Proverb
A key step in understanding the people
who wish to infringe upon or deny the right of the people to keep and bear arms involves
listening carefully to what they are saying to you. The individuals and groups who seek to
eradicate private ownership of small arms –
and believe such a chore even remotely possible – are speaking loudly and clearly.
But are you really hearing what they are saying to you?
I recommend that the first time
you read this essay, you read it from start to finish in its entirety. On your subsequent visits, click any of the
hyper-linked words below to go to that section.
I am frequently asked why I am prone to
express righteous indignation toward rabid anti-rights leaders. I believe this
essay will not only answer that question thoroughly, it will provide fuel for
gun rights activists and food for thought for those who oppose us.
Individuals and groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not respect
your:
Inalienable Rights:
Individuals
and groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not respect:
Inalienable
Rights
America's
Founding Fathers described a few rights as inalienable. Prominent in the Declaration of
Independence, we find the following text:
"We
hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."
Dictionary.com
defines “inalienable”
as:
"Incapable of being
alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; incapable of being
repudiated; not subject to forfeiture"
Your rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness are among your inalienable rights
– there are others
– and “the
pursuit of happiness”
covers a broad spectrum, indeed. Technically, per the definition, you can't give
your rights away if you try; even if you act as if you do, your rights are still
intact.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect your RIGHT TO LIFE.
Your right to
life is inalienable – and only you can determine the worth of your own life. The means to
protect, defend, secure and assure the continuation of your life is therefore
inalienable and of equal value to the value you place upon your life.
For people who are under a violent attack and in
immediate need of the best self-defense tool available, the inalienable
right to life is about surviving.
Self-preservation is so basic an instinct self-defense is usually an autonomic
response when resisting an aggressor.
Surviving an aggressive attack requires the ability to engage in effective
self-defense; a gun is superior to all other tools for that purpose. The
right to life is the right to self-defense. Undermining the right to
self-defense undermines the right to life.
Consider some simple logic:
1) If you're
violently attacked by someone carrying a weapon, to defend yourself, unless you
are among the small minority trained in martial arts, you will require an
efficient and effective weapon yourself. Your best choice is
most definitely a handgun. And of course this is why a police officer carries a handgun; it's convenient (carryable/concealable), affordable, and above all
functional, assuredly reliable and readily accessible.
2) If you don't defend yourself,
you will either be robbed, harmed or killed.
3) When third parties attempt to deny you the
most effective means of defending your
life, they are saying that you must submit to being robbed, harmed or killed,
that you do not have an inalienable
right to life, that your alienable right to life is not worthy of respect.
In fact, every individual or group who
exerts force – legislative, judicial, emotional, psychological or physical –
to strip you of the ability to defend, protect, secure and assure the
continuation of your life is directly infringing on your right to life and
in essence saying all of the
following directly to YOU:
- “The criminal's power to ruin or even steal your life
is more important than your right to life and to survive a criminal assault.
Why? Because that fits my gun control ideology.”
- “The value you place upon your life
is irrelevant.”
- “Your
life is not as important as the success of a common thug who seeks to
victimize you.”
- “I
do not care about your right to life; it means nothing, and therefore you mean nothing.”
- “If
a common villain on the street overpowers you because you are defenseless
against him and you are raped, beaten, tortured and murdered, too bad.”
- “Human
beings have a right to life, but you have no right to life;
therefore, you are not a human being.”
Do these seem like the words of a moral,
compassionate, wise, prudent
person? The words of a leader, or the words of a misleader?
The
list of people who are saying these and many other life-hating, right-to-life-infringing things to you –
directly to you –
includes each anti-Second-Amendment: neighbor, friend, co-worker, boss,
colleague, family member, police officer, judge, attorney, doctor,
store owner, activist, leader, follower, preacher, teacher, and many others. If you'll just listen to what they are saying to you,
perhaps you may have a stronger interest in turning them
around – and defending with ferocious resolve your right to
life.
It
is no coincidence that the words “live”
and “evil”
are spelled in reverse; their natures oppose one another. In
his masterful, detailed and true-story-rich book called People of the Lie,
Dr. M. Scott Peck proves eloquently that
someone or
something that thwarts or opposes life is simply evil.
Whether intentionally or through ignorance, someone who opposes your
inalienable right to
life and the most effective means to exercise and enforce your
inalienable right to life is
opposing your life –
being
evil.
To the family of a gunowner who was injured or
killed by a villain due to being unConstitutionally disarmed by government, the evil nature of gun
rights infringements is self-evident. Ahead we will explore various types of
people who suffer the effects of this type of human evil –
and find out exactly what the right-to-life infringers are saying to them.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect your RIGHT TO LIBERTY.
Individual Liberty
Definition
A
good starting point for a discussion on liberty is to first define the oft-used term. The following definitions were taken directly from Dictionary.com.
Because liberty's definitions are so expansive and diverse, I've taken the
liberty of adding commentary between each definition:
"The condition of being free
from restriction or control."
Removal of the right of the people to
keep and bear arms restricts the ability of the disarmed people to defend
themselves, their homes, their families. Disarmed people are also much,
much easier to control. Ask the Chinese.
"The right and power to act,
believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing."
Interestingly, in countries lacking in
a right of the people to keep and bear arms, freedom of expression is also
absent or reduced.
"The condition of being physically
and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor."
How many people have been physically
confined by mere criminals because they were easy to subdue due to their being
unable to defend themselves? And how many people have been physically and
legally confined by their governments, subjected to servitude and forced labor
after being disarmed? (In the 20th century alone, there were millions,
most of whom were eventually executed.)
"Freedom from unjust or undue
governmental control."
Considering the fact that We The People
are government's masters -- their bosses -- where is the justice in their
controlling (or banning) our abilities to defend our own lives and the lives of
those we love while they also declare themselves immune from most of the gun
restrictions they place upon the people they swore an oath
to serve.
"A right or immunity to engage in
certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected
by the Bill of Rights." [emphasis theirs]
It's nice to see the Bill of Rights
mentioned in the definition of "liberty." However, the above
definition begs the question: how much control or interference -- infringement
-- is to be placed on the inalienable right to liberty
before we can all agree that it is being aliened from us?
The Point
When you're assaulted or in fear of
assault, your right to move about freely is constrained, constricted,
restricted; liberty is absent. If you're in fear of your life because you can't
defend yourself among brazen criminals in your community, you're not free to: leave your home, walk your neighborhood,
travel the streets of your city, travel the highways of your state, travel the
country. Your liberty to be yourself in the world around you is limited,
restricted -- gone.
Those who would deprive you of the means of self-defense are limiting your
options, dictating to you the restraints upon your own liberties; once again,
you're not free. Removing the means with
which you can ensure your personal liberty is akin to removing your very nature.
To grasp the magnitude of
what liberty-infringing people are actually saying, just listen to them:
Every individual or group
who exerts force – legislative,
judicial, emotional, psychological or physical – to prohibit you, a lawful,
decent citizen, from keeping and bearing arms as a means of assuring your right
to personal, individual liberty is in essence saying all of the following, directly to YOU:
- “The criminal's power to
steal your liberty, to any degree, is more important than your inalienable
right to liberty.”
- “I am more intelligent than
America's Founding Fathers. I know they said you have a right to liberty,
but they were wrong, because I say so.”
- “Your right to liberty doesn't
exist.”
- “The value you place on your
liberty is meaningless and irrelevant as compared to the value I place on
assuring that you have no means to protect your liberty.”
- “My opinion is superior to your
liberty.”
Do these seem like the words of a moral,
compassionate, wise, prudent
person? The words of a leader, or the words of a misleader?
We must understand that people who –
by their actions – utter such statements do not respect their own rights to
individual liberty. These are the people who would prefer to be bound and gagged
and forced to do unthinkable things rather than simply point a gun at someone
for a few minutes while waiting for the police to arrive. These are the people
who believe you should forfeit all claims to your own individual liberty rights
– to a despicable human being who holds you and life itself in contempt.
When confronted with people who
believe your inalienable right to liberty does not exist,
it is important to understand that you are probably dealing with individuals who
believe:
- There is nothing worth dying for, but
they'd rather die on the altar of a violent gang member's drug habit than stop him so he cannot steal someone else's
liberty after he's done stealing theirs.
- There is nothing worth killing for, so they'd let a killer
kill them.
If such conflicted people cross your path and you are unable to
help them resolve their “belief contradictions,” stay conscious of what they
are attempting to feed you, and be sure to check it against the truth before you
bite.
National Liberty
When
individual liberties are intact, the country in which such individuals reside is
generally one with a high degree of national liberty. The denial of
individual liberty rights – in any form – is therefore a denial of national
liberties, as well.
Individual liberty is a microcosm of a
nation's liberty.
Every individual or group
who exerts force – legislative,
judicial, emotional, psychological or physical – to prohibit you, a lawful,
decent citizen, from keeping and bearing arms as a means of assuring your right
to national liberty is in essence saying all of the following, directly to YOU:
- “The power of the government to
steal your liberty shall not be infringed.”
- “I do not care about the liberty
of the nation; liberty of the nation is not important.”
- “Liberty of our nation has nothing
to do with the things the Founding Fathers of our nation said it did; they
didn't know what they were talking about.”
- “I do not care that many disarmed
nations have lost large portions of their liberties after being disarmed.
You do not have a right to liberty, so it doesn't matter.”
Do these seem like the words of a moral,
compassionate, wise, prudent
person? The words of a leader, or the words of a misleader?
Bear in mind that a good many
legislators who actively seek to prohibit your right to liberty by infringing on
your right to keep and bear arms enjoy the service of armed bodyguards, and you
pay their fees. Many of them also enjoy the freedom to carry firearms where you
cannot, and a large percentage of them live in safe, secure gated communities
while expecting "the peasants" to go out on streets through which they
will not even drive.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect your RIGHT TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
If
a criminal kills you because you are disarmed by unConstitutional gun laws and
thus defenseless against his knife attack, how are you to maintain your
happiness? Or if he only cripples you and ruins one lung, leaving you in a
wheelchair and breathing at half capacity, where then will that leave your ability
to pursue your happiness?
Every individual or group who exerts
force – legislative, judicial, emotional, psychological or physical –
to prohibit you, a lawful, decent citizen, from keeping and bearing arms as a
means of assuring your right to pursue your happiness is in essence saying all of
the following, directly to YOU:
- “The power of the criminal to steal your pursuit of happiness
is more important that your ability to stop him from doing so..”
- “Your
right to happiness is not as important as my desire to make sure you have no
means to defend any of your
inalienable rights.”
- “Even
if your owning firearms in the pursuit of your happiness hurts not a single
person, I deny you that right, because my happiness is more important than
yours, and I am happiest knowing you are easy to rob, rape, beat and kill.”
- “My
pursuit of happiness will be achieved when you are dead – or at least
raped and beaten, with a large dose of utter humiliation, at the hands of
criminals who ignore gun laws I insist that you obey.”
Do these seem like the words of a moral,
compassionate, wise, prudent
person? The words of a leader, or the words of a misleader?
That
people who utter such horrid statements through their rights-infringing actions
while attempting to claim the moral high ground is not only mysterious, it is bizarre.
Gun owners tend to honor the choices anti-gun people make –
to be a helpless victim, an easy target for a common criminal – but decent, peaceable gun owners take
major offense at being told to weaken down to a
place where we forfeit our rights to lowly streets thugs. Nor do we understand
why some people choose to be easy prey. We prefer to continue to pursue our
happiness, as is our right, and let anti-gun people play the roles of victims.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect your RIGHT
TO PROPERTY.
What you own is yours. You've
worked hard for it. You deserve it, too. Anyone who denies that fact is simply
incorrect.
In 1775, in his Thoughts on
Defensive War, another of our nation's brave Founders, Thomas Paine, said, “Arms
discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the
world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the
law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Another great leader in America's past, John Adams, also understood the right to
property, as illustrated when he said,
"Resistance
to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my
limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of
nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of
society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
Unfortunately, some people do not believe in
working for a living. Some people prefer to behave like parasites. These
social parasites prey on the weakness of others, taking what they will, in
whatever way they can. We read about them in newspapers, hear about them
on the radio and watch reports about them on television. For some people, taking
from others seems to be all they know.
And some of them do it by brute force,
even if it means resorting to murderous violence. Some steal small personal
objects like jewelry or cell phones. Other more advanced cases steal
electronics, cars, artwork, and heirlooms – empty the safe, so to speak.
Does anyone in his or her right mind
believe such people – social vampires – will one day wake up after a
successful heist and think to themselves, “Gosh.
This is wrong. I'm going to go out and get a real job.”
Hardly. Some percentage of hardened
criminals are violent psychopaths who enjoy taking from others.
What these poor souls need are Reality Checks. What will stop them – the only
thing that will stop them – is the effective use of a gun. Whether that
gun is held by a police officer or an armed citizen is immaterial to the point
of this discussion:
a bad guy understands a gun pointed in his face.
To
say that police officers cannot be everywhere at once is silly; it's
self-evident. Generously, there are 300 times as many citizens in America as there are
police officers. Even the finest police officer on the most effective law
enforcement team in the nation cannot cover 300 people at one time, all of the
time; it's physically impossible. The Supreme Court's ruling that police officers have “no
duty to protect”
only furthers the cold, hard fact that your property may one day provide you an
opportunity to determine whether or not you really want to keep it.
Oddly,
a good many people who oppose private gun ownership offer this advice: “Give
them what they want so they'll go away.”
That the armed parasite will be “going
away”
only to commit a similar crime against their neighbors isn't important to the
people who wish that we were a police state – where only the police and
criminals have guns. (And besides, who's to say that they will go away,
or when they do that you'll still be alive?)
What are these anti-property-rights people
really telling us?
Every individual or group who exerts
force – legislative, judicial, emotional, psychological or physical –
to prohibit you, a lawful, decent citizen, from keeping possession of the things
you've worked so hard to acquire, anywhere you go, is in essence saying all of
the following, directly to YOU:
- “The power of the criminal to steal your possessions shall not be infringed.”
- “The
right of the government to steal your property without due process and a
jury of your peers shall not be infringed, either.”
- “Yes,
yes, you worked hard for your gold watch, your television, your car and the
cash you've tucked away in your safe for that long overdue vacation you've
been planning, but you cannot use a gun to stop the knife-wielding junkie
when he attacks you in the parking lot and abducts you, takes you to your
home and robs you blind. That criminal has rights, too.”
- “You
have no right to own what you own. That you've worked thousands of hours to
acquire what can be taken from you in a few minutes or even a few seconds means nothing to me at all.”
- “Your
property is not as important as the criminal's right to steal your property,
and you're an idiot for not understanding that simple fact.”
Do these seem like the words of a moral,
compassionate, wise, prudent
person? The words of a leader, or the words of a misleader?
People
who say the above – whether they have the courage to say it directly or are
saying it by their actions – are a sad lot. What is most alarming is
that they'd accept being cleaned out by a 17-year-old drug addict as their lot
in life, so they expect you to do the same.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect CHILDREN.
If you are unable to protect and defend your
children, any time, any place, anywhere, they can be assaulted by a common thug
on the street, any time, any place, anywhere. As a parent, it is your job – your
sacred duty – to protect your offspring. Therefore, if you are unable to
protect and defend them, your inability to do so is a testament to your failure as a parent.
Even a dog uses every means available to assure the safety of her puppies. One
can only hope you love your children more than a dog
loves her puppies.
Yet sadly, there
are among us a select number of depraved souls who would have us leave our
children out to be, figuratively, devoured by a pack of wolves.
Every individual or group who exerts
force – legislative, judicial, emotional, psychological or physical – to
prohibit you from using today's available technology (equal to that possessed by
criminals, for example) to protect your beautiful children, is in essence saying
all of the following, directly to YOU:
- “The criminal's power to kidnap, beat, rape, brutalize and murder your
children shall not be infringed.”
- “I
do not respect your right to protect your family. Therefore, I do not
respect your family, or you.”
- “Your
children's inalienable
right to life – and your right to defend, protect, secure and
assure the continuation of their lives – is nonexistent.”
- “Your
children are meaningless. If they are unfortunate enough to be kidnapped
right before your very eyes by thugs with knives only to be beaten, raped
and killed, too bad. You do not
have a right to use today's available technology – the kind criminals
might use against your kids – to protect them.”
- “Your
children do not have a right to life, and they do not have a right to
liberty, either. Only government agents have a right to protect their
children.”
- “The
fact that I defy your right to protect your children should tell you
something: I hate your children, and I hate you.”
- “I
would let a knife-wielding thug kidnap, rape and murder my children, and so
should you.
For the children.”
Do these seem like the words of a
moral, compassionate, wise, prudent person? The words of a leader, or the words
of a misleader?
Michael Levine must have had such
'parents' in mind when he said, “Having children makes you no more a parent than having a piano makes you a
pianist.”
Among
the indigenous peoples of what is now America, there is a simple but profound
statement we would all do well to heed: Let nothing be done to harm the
children. To millions of lawful, decent citizens of our fair nation, owning a
firearm is directly related to assuring that this sentiment is upheld and
enforced. Any decent mother or father would fight and bleed and even die to
protect his or her children. But smart, armed parents – if
confronted with a violent attacker intent on harming their children – would
rather make the attacker submit, bleed or even, if necessary, die, instead.
The
parent who would not exercise all available capabilities to defend a child hangs
from the lowest rung on the ladder of human evolution. Clinging
to that blighted parent's foot with one weak hand, over the abyss of
sub-animalism, is the person who would strip others of the same ability to
defend their own children.
I spit in that parent's face for being a revolting
disgrace to humanity.
But
I'd put my very life on the line to defend their own children from an attacker,
because I love their children more than they do.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect WOMEN.
As a general rule, to which there are
always exceptions, women tend to have less physical strength than men, even
those of similar size. Women, on the whole, tend to have less body mass and less musculature than men. The preponderance of violent criminals also
happens to be men. Add to that the fact that criminals
often operate in groups of two or more. Against these odds, a woman can
increase her chance of surviving an encounter with a violent person –
defending her precious inalienable rights to life and
liberty – by keeping
and bearing a handgun.
A lone woman under attack by a lone man
has a so-so chance of surviving the encounter – as long as he isn't intent on
killing her. But a lone woman with a gun can drop six knife-wielding men in 3
seconds – even if they all weigh twice as much as she does – when she is
familiar with her handgun and its safe and effective use.
Requiring a woman who chooses to
protect and defend her own life to forego the means to do so is unthinkable;
anyone who does so should not only be ashamed but publicly humiliated. When
confronted with a rapist but unarmed due to a “law”
that has restricted her inalienable right to life and liberty, those who have
seen to it that she is unarmed are themselves responsible for the horrors she
experiences. Anti-self-defense legislators, and the voters who put them in office, are the
enablers of rapists,
robbers, murderers; disarmed women's blood is all over their hands, in
permanent stains.
Every individual or group who exerts
force – legislative, judicial, emotional, psychological or physical –
to prohibit a lawful, decent woman from keeping and bearing arms is in essence
saying all of the following, directly to YOU:
- “The
right of the criminal to kidnap, rob, rape, beat, terrorize and murder every
woman in your life shall not be infringed.”
- “Women
do not deserve the right to stop rapists from violently invading their
bodies.”
- “Our
nation's women are inferior to common street thugs; street thugs should be
allowed to have their way with them, any time they please – even if it
means violent rape followed by ruthless torture, murder and mutilation. And
what their families think of that happening to them is irrelevant.”
- “I have the power to unilaterally
dictate that women must submit to rapists and murderers.”
- “I
hate women. And I don't care what you think about that, either.”
Do these seem like the words of a
moral, compassionate, wise, prudent person? The words of a leader, or the words
of a misleader?
All things are born of woman. Be
she 14 or 108 years old, she is special, sacred and holy. We must have no pity on
creatures that would defile our mothers, sisters, daughters and grandmothers with
such atrocious and inhuman belief systems. Next time people tell you that
a woman should not be allowed to carry a gun for rapist-stopping power, anywhere
she goes, invite them to visualize their favorite female companions being
brutally raped and murdered. Ask them how they feel about that
happening. Then thank them for honoring The Woman so highly that they'd
deny her inalienable rights to life and liberty.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect
THE ELDERLY.
As a general rule, to which there are
always exceptions, elderly people tend to be weaker, to some degree,
than younger people. Our elders also tend, on the whole, to have slower
reflexes and reduced vision and hearing. The natural tendency to lose the above abilities
and characteristics can even be called an “age
handicap.”
Requiring someone with already-reduced
chances of surviving a violent attack to go into situations where they may
encounter stronger, more agile criminals with better reflexes and a mean streak
is a violation of that person's inalienable rights to
life and liberty. Our elders are to be
respected, revered and cherished for both their years and the wisdom that comes
with them, as well as for their having “done
their time”
as contributors to our society. Denying those respected
– and vulnerable
– people the right
to stop violent assault is a disgrace to civilized
society.
But some detached and confused people
would have our grandmothers and grandfathers forced into
submission by street thugs, their wedding bands of 50 years forcibly removed
from their frail, arthritic hands, their tired old bodies beaten, their spirits
scarred – by removing the one thing from
their possession that can fairly equalize a frightening encounter with a violent
criminal: the handgun.
Every individual or group who exerts force
– legislative,
judicial, emotional, psychological or physical – to so abuse our beloved
Elders are themselves as guilty as those who would criminally mistreat them.
They are in essence saying the following to our Grandmothers and Grandfathers:
- “The criminal's power to steal your gold teeth by wrenching them out with
pliers before he beats and finally kills you shall not be infringed.”
- “You
deserve to lose in hand to hand combat with a vicious violent felon who will
leave you bleeding and crying on the pavement.”
- “Your
last dying breath on this planet should be one filled with horror and agony
as in the likes of Hollywood's sickest movie.”
- “Everything
you've worked for and all the love you've given should culminate in a
ruthless physical attack that results in your being degraded, humiliated,
brutalized, hospitalized – or worse.”
- “I
hold zero respect for your wisdom, your knowledge, your contributions to our
society or anything else about you. Die at the hands of a scumbag.”
Do these seem like the words of a
moral, compassionate, wise, prudent person? The words of a leader, or the words
of a misleader?
We must have no pity on someone who would
wish such a fate on those who reared us, guided our lives, picked us up when we
were down and loved us more than we loved ourselves; they are not well.
The days of dishonoring our elders by
denying them the inalienable right to life and liberty are coming to an end. Period.
It's high time we see Congress pass The Senior Citizens' National Right to
Carry Act. Any legislators who oppose it should be rightly labeled as
anti-elderly.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect THE HANDICAPPED.
One whose natural abilities are
diminished – whether by birth, accident, injury or disease – has a reduced chance of
surviving against a fully-abled violent criminal. A person in a wheelchair
cannot get up and run away from an aggressor, nor can he or she duke it out
fairly. Prohibiting a handicapped – differently abled – person from using a
gun to even the odds against rights-violating attackers is no less abhorrent
than actually committing a violent act against that person. In fact, it
is more immoral inasmuch as the would-be denier of the right to self-defense and
life – be it a politician, a police officer or an anti-self-defense voter –
has no business determining from some distant, safe location, the fate of a handicapped person who is under
attack.
In a society where we humanely seek to
provide access ramps, special parking, reduced rates, and special seating –
all matters of mere convenience – to people who are in some way less
physically capable than the average citizen, where is the common sense in
prohibiting these same human beings from stopping a knife-wielding
attacker? Where is one single lick of sense in telling a person with
paralysis in one half of his or her body, or the use of only one arm, that he or
she must defeat two knife-wielding thugs in the grocery store parking lot
barehanded?
Every individual or group who exerts
force – legislative, judicial, emotional, psychological or physical –
to prohibit a lawful, decent citizen who has some kind of disability from
keeping and bearing arms for self-defense, anywhere he or she goes, is in
essence saying all of the following:
- “The criminal's ability to attack, brutalize, terrorize, rape, rob and kill
people in wheelchairs shall not be infringed.”
- “Fend
for yourself against strong young gang members who are intent on removing
your gold fillings from your mouth to feed their crack habit before they
rape you to feed their sexual depravity and kill you to vent their anger.”
- “Of
course you cannot overpower the repeat violent felons the state let out
years too soon with little or no true rehabilitation whatsoever, but you
have no choice but to try. Good luck. At least you have a ramp
at work so you can earn your keep in society and help the government fund
unconstitutional wealth redistribution.”
- “Common
criminals should be allowed to view you – and every handicapped person –
as an easy ticket to some quick cash and maybe a little raunchy, stolen
sex. That's what you deserve.”
- “I
realize that you were crippled in a foreign war fighting valiantly to put
Communists in their place, but you need to realize your place in life now,
and that place is V-I-C-T-I-M.”
Do these seem like the words of a
moral, compassionate, wise, prudent person? The words of a leader, or the words
of a misleader?
If you know anyone who truly believes
that every handicapped person in the nation should be prohibited from – if
they so choose – carrying an equalizing handgun to fend off bad people, get
down on your knees and pray for their deliverance into humanity. Then stand up
and get proactive by launching a bill in the next legislative session called The
Disabled
Americans Self Defense Act.
Any legislator who refuses to support it should be strapped to a wheelchair and stuck
in the nearest grocery store parking lot, in a
bad part of town, after dark – every day, until they realize that they ask of
our disabled citizens far more than they'd undergo themselves. It's time for a
return to Equality in the preservation of inalienable
rights.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect the RACES.
Some people in our society consider
themselves superior to other people in our society because of skin color or
genetic or religious background. Some of these “I
am better than you”
people take their superiority to extremes of direct violence against people they
consider inferior due to their differences. Only a gun can assist a person
under a violent, multi-person race-related attack to defend him- or herself from
armed aggressors. Anti-self-defense people who moan and groan about “hate
crimes”
are themselves committing hate crimes by denying the right of the ______ [pick a
race] people to keep and
bear arms.
Demanding that someone submit to a
racially motivated attack is immoral, self-centered and downright atrocious; it
is itself an act of violent, aggressive racism.
But some people think that black
people, Hispanic people, Jewish people, Indian people, Chinese people, Japanese
people, white people and all other races should be forced to do whatever a pack
of violent thugs makes them do, including die. And these racists are
speaking quite clearly. Just listen to what they are saying...
Every individual or group who exerts
force – legislative, judicial, emotional, psychological or physical –
to prohibit a lawful, decent citizen of a certain race from keeping and bearing
arms for self-defense against racially-motivated attacks, anywhere he or she
goes, is in essence saying all of the following:
- “The criminal's power to viciously attack people because of their race shall
not be infringed.”
- “You
are just a stupid [pick a racial slur, for every race], and you deserve
whatever your hateful aggressors give you. Hope it hurts. Bleed well.”
- “We'll
see how 'free at last' you really are, once they are done with you.”
- “Yes,
yes, I talk a lot about racial equality. But that doesn't extend to your
alleged 'inalienable'
right to life and liberty against people who want to stick a knife in your
gut and twist it a couple of times, you fool. You cannot carry a gun to
deter those four guys who are looking to beat the hell out of someone like
you. Deal with it.”
- “I
realize that people of your, umm, background... are getting randomly attacked
in your own neighborhood. But hey. It's a free country. You don't have to go
out at night. Move to another town.”
Do these seem like the words of a
moral, compassionate, wise, prudent person? The words of a leader, or the words
of a misleader?
If you know anyone who believes that
someone should not be allowed to stop a racially-motivated attack waged by
several violent aggressors, have them read the above, and tell them you are onto
their disgusting racist facade; you see right through it.
back to
top
Individuals and
groups who infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not
respect YOU.
Some people are telling you that your
inalienable rights to life and liberty and pursuing happiness and defending
your property do not exist at all. And they are being quite ruthless about it.
Every individual or group
who exerts
force – legislative, judicial, emotional, psychological or physical –
to prohibit you, a lawful, decent citizen, from keeping and bearing arms for
defense of your
inalienable rights, anywhere you go, is in essence saying all of
the following, directly to YOU:
- “The criminal's ability to destroy your life and kill the people you love the
most shall not be infringed.”
- “Screw
you. I don't care about your precious 'rights.' And I do mean
screw YOU.”
- “I
don't care if your family has to get a call from the police telling them you
are in a coma after being beaten nearly to death over the fifty bucks they
took by force because you were unable to defend yourself.”
- “Your 'inalienable' right to life and liberty and property mean nothing at all,
not now or ever. They are just empty words, you peasant.”
- “So
what if you get attacked by a repeat violent felon and die a gruesome
death. Your family and friends will get over it. You're not that
important.”
- “You
are expendable.”
- “Your
life is worthless. Without any value worth protecting. And I don't care what
happens to you, either.”
And do pay close attention to what your
legislators – your hired public servants – are saying to you when
they deny your
inalienable rights to life, liberty,
happiness and property and their
defense through keeping and bearing arms. Listen very closely:
- “The criminal's power to destroy your life and kill the people you love the
most shall not be infringed.”
- “The government's power to legislate your rights into oblivion shall not be
infringed, either.”
- “I
can carry a gun everywhere, and you can't, so I'm obviously better
than you are.”
- “Yes,
yes, I took an oath to
protect and defend your so-called inalienable
rights, but guess what: You have none to
defend.”
- “I
use your money to pay a bodyguard –
armed with a gun he can carry
everywhere in my defense – and I use your money to pay to live in a
gated community you can't afford where I am immune to the criminal elements
with which you must live, too. What are you doing to do about it,
slave?”
- “Suffer.
Because I said so.”
- “If
you or your loved ones get attacked and hurt or killed because I helped assure
that you cannot protect yourself, I'll keep on violating my oath, and
life will go on. So what?”
- “I
enjoy denying you your right to self-defense, your right to life
and your right to liberty.”
Do these seem like the words of a
moral, compassionate, wise, prudent person? The words of a leader, or the words
of a misleader?
How important are your inalienable
rights... to you?
back to
top
Conclusion
100% of the gun-related crimes
committed in America are committed by .004% of America's gun owners, and most of
those people are already prohibited from possessing arms. The rest of us not
only abhor the actions of these cowards, if they attempt to harm us or anyone
around us, we are likely to help them find their ways to the police stations,
the hospitals or the morgues. We do not consider a convicted violent felon who
uses guns against innocent people to be worthy of the title “gunowner”;
such people disgrace the proud tradition and heritage of firearms ownership. The
preponderance of America's gun owners are honest, hard-working people of
integrity, honor and decency.
Many American gun owners fought in
wars, because they were called. Millions of American gun owners are women. Many
more millions of American gun owners own guns to defend their children, their
families. Millions of American gun owners are elderly, handicapped or of a
non-white race. And all of their rights are just as
inalienable as they were when
our beloved nation's Founders drafted The Declaration of Independence.
There is nothing moral or just
about infringing upon the
inalienable rights of others. Nothing.
The number of gun owners in America
concerned about the movement to disarm We The People is growing. Every new piece
of anti-rights legislation brings more people into the fold of liberty advocacy.
Many among us are not joiners, boast no membership cards or affiliations, carry
no signs in protest, write no letters to editors. But they are no less our
countrymen should their assistance one day finally, unfortunately be required.
I beseech America's anti-rights
legislators, judges, police, doctors, attorneys, laymen, leaders and followers
to turn away from their moves to disarm America. I call upon them to
explore true solutions to violence in our society that also preserve and honor
the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I ask for anger to be
replaced with commitment to win/win resolutions. I urge for patience and
understanding and a sense of patriotism to overshadow the areas where confusion
and frustration have been creeping.
I pray, deep in my heart, for a return
to the national feeling of sanctity for all of our bloodstained Bill of
Rights.
And I am a free man. And I will live the rest of my life a
free man. I put a great deal of value in my life, my liberty, my property and my
pursuit of happiness. I refuse to give in to armed
criminals, and I will never submit to any
government agent who seeks to disarm me.
And at the pace the anti-rights people
are going, I wonder if I may one day be forced to reluctantly join my countrymen
At Arms to restore the rights of the people.
I sure hope not. I'd rather live and
let live.
back
to top
Click
here for printer version.
Reprint
Requirements
This article may be reprinted for non-profit purposes if it is printed
in its entirety, unedited. Reprint on the internet is permissible
provided it includes a link back to our
homepage at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
Reprint in print is permissible provided every word from the top to the bottom
of the article is printed including this notice. Entire sections of this material
may be printed in newsletters only if the website address to the full
original – http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/information/listen.asp
– is contained at the top or bottom of the reprinted material.
Finally, I specifically request that this material not be forwarded through
email, as it will lose its formatting and thus some of its message. Copyright 2001,
Angel Shamaya,
KeepAndBearArms.com, all rights reserved. “Ownership”
of this material is not the issue; I simply seek to assure that its full message
is left intact.
Acknowledgements
Brian Puckett of Citizens
of America, Sam Cohen of Gun Owners of New Hampshire,
and California Attorney Peter Mancus each contributed
invaluable input to the final version of this essay. These
three gentlemen are not only adept with the finer points
of the language, their understandings of the right of the
people to keep and bear arms are as strong as any person I
know. Thanks, guys.
Tune In Next Time For...
Gun rights infringers do not
respect any of the following character traits:
-
Self-determination
-
Self-reliance
-
Self-empowerment
-
Self-control
-
Self-preservation
-
Self-respect
-
Self-worth
-
Respect for Life
-
Respect for Liberty
-
Respect for Property
-
Respect for Others
-
Responsibility to Self
-
Responsibility to Family
-
Responsibility to Community
-
Responsibility to Society, State, Nation
AND... What
Are Anti-Second-Amendment Leaders Saying to Their Followers?
–And what are they saying about them? |