Keep and Bear Arms
Home Members Login/Join About Us News/Editorials Archives Take Action Your Voice Web Services Free Email
You are 1 of 368 active visitors Monday, August 15, 2022
EMAIL NEWS
Main Email List:
Subscribe
Unsubscribe

State Email Lists:
Click Here
SUPPORT KABA
» Join/Renew Online
» Join/Renew by Mail
» Make a Donation
» Magazine Subscriptions
» KABA Memorial Fund
» Advertise Here
» Use KABA Free Email

» JOIN/Renew NOW! «
 
SUPPORT OUR SUPPORTERS

 

YOUR VOTE COUNTS

Keep and Bear Arms - Vote In Our Polls
Do you oppose Biden's anti-gun executive orders?
Yes
No
Undecided

Current results
Earlier poll results
2491 people voted

 

SPONSORED LINKS

 
» U.S. Gun Laws
» AmeriPAC
» NoInternetTax
» Gun Show On The Net
» 2nd Amendment Show
» SEMPER FIrearms
» Colt Collectors Assoc.
» Personal Defense Solutions

 

 


Keep and Bear Arms

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?

 QUOTES TO REMEMBER
To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country. — Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York [London 1823]

COPYRIGHT POLICY: The posting of copyrighted articles and other content, in whole or in part, is not allowed here. We have made an effort to educate our users about this policy and we are extremely serious about this. Users who are caught violating this rule will be warned and/or banned.
If you are the owner of content that you believe has been posted on this site without your permission, please contact our webmaster by following this link. Please include with your message: (1) the particulars of the infringement, including a description of the content, (2) a link to that content here and (3) information concerning where the content in question was originally posted/published. We will address your complaint as quickly as possible. Thank you.

 
NOTICE:  The information contained in this site is not to be considered as legal advice. In no way are Keep And Bear Arms .com or any of its agents responsible for the actions of our members or site visitors. Also, because this web site is a Free Speech Zone, opinions, ideas, beliefs, suggestions, practices and concepts throughout this site may or may not represent those of Keep And Bear Arms .com. All rights reserved. Articles that are original to this site may be redistributed provided they are left intact and a link to http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com is given. Click here for Contact Information for representatives of KeepAndBearArms.com.

Thawte.com is the leading provider of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and digital certificate solutions used by enterprises, Web sites, and consumers to conduct secure communications and transactions over the Internet and private networks.

KeepAndBearArms.com, Inc. © 1999-2022, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy