Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page

NOTE! This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or any other living person besides the one who posted them. Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion Policy, but there's a bad apple in every bunch, and we have no control over bigots and other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com

The Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:

Standing my ground
Submitted by: Bruce W. Krafft

There are 30 comments on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments

"Where does the right for someone to bear arms and to defend themselves cross the line with my right to not live in fear?"

"In Oklahoma, lawmakers are considering what is being labeled as the 'Stand Your Ground' bill, which gives greater legal protections to people who shoot or use other deadly force when threatened or attacked."

"With similar bills pending in Georgia, and one measure already passed in Florida, in its essence this bill expands where firearms can be taken and when they can be used with deadly force, clarifying existing laws on self defense."

"Other legislation pending includes efforts to allow judges, principals and even school superintendents to carry guns." ...
-------

KABA Note: You can contact the author here.

Comment by: bruce_krafft-at-yahoo.com (2/22/2006)

Here is my reply to this drivel:

Dear Sir or Madam,

You do not have a 'right' not to live in fear. You do have the right to defende yourself, and take whatever steps you feel necessary to do so, just so long as those steps do not infringe on my right to defend myself, using the most effective tools available (to wit, a gun).

This is the classic 'your right to throw a punch stops at the end of my nose'. I am sorry that you suffer from an irrational fear of certain inanimate objects, perhaps counseling can help you.

Peace,

Bruce

Comment by: bruce_krafft-at-yahoo.com (2/22/2006)

And here is s/his reply in its entirety:

From: "Robbie Schwartz"
Subject: Re: Reader comment from The Walton Tribune web site
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:02:32 -0500
To: bruce_krafft@yahoo.com

While you feel that it is an irrational fear of certain inanimate objects, as the old saying goes it is not guns that kill people, it is people who do. So let me clear that one up for you off the top. And let me go ahead and offer up a portion of the Declaration of Independence that says all Americans should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ...

(cont.)

Comment by: bruce_krafft-at-yahoo.com (2/22/2006)

...

While I offered no resistance to the actual right to bear arms, and perhaps you missed that in the column, what I do have a problem with is the increased chances of someone accidentally shooting me because of some fear of their own. Why hide behind a gun and deprive oneself of the satisfaction of feeling the bones break of someone when you hit them?

Robbie Schwartz
News Editor
Walton Tribune / Loganville Tribune
770-266-6052
770-267-7780 (fax)

Comment by: Stefan.357@rrd.com (2/22/2006)

So I ask, where does the right for someone to bear arms and protect themselves end and my right to feel safe as an ordinary citizen begin? I know this will be difficult to believe, but there is actually NO right to FEEL safe as an ordinary citizen!

Comment by: info@GunShowOnTheNet.com (2/22/2006)

"So I ask, where does the right for someone to bear arms and protect themselves end and my right to feel safe as an ordinary citizen begin?"

How can you possibly "feel safe" when there is a good number of people that have SWORN to cause us harm? (terrorists). And we have NO IDEA from where they are going to spring up next?

You have NO ENUMERATED RIGHT to 'feel safe'. We, citizens on the other hand, DO HAVE AN ENUMERATED RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS. And it is NOT just a RIGHT, IT IS A DUTY!

Comment by: revjen45@hotmail.com (2/22/2006)

The fact that Mr. Schwartz thinks his wife is an idiot has nothing to do with my right to defend my life if attacked in a public place.

Comment by: Pro-Gun (2/22/2006)

Sir
You may be 250 lbs. and have studied all sorts of defensive hand to hand methods, but I grant you that the average person won't have the Immense skill you profess to have. Also what of the the person by reason of age is unable to throw that satisfying punch as you call it. Is it possible that if everyone knew there was no reason to retreat may be the BGs would be more hesitant to accost anyone? But then I forget you already think every one ccan just punch his/her way through a knife, bat or gun attack.

Comment by: GunHand (2/22/2006)

So I ask, where does the right for someone to bear arms and protect themselves end and my right to feel safe as an ordinary citizen begin? So I ask, Why should he FEAR the possibilty of some one else being armed? The only time he should have FEAR is when the crinanal elite sticks a firearm in his gut. He says, I can respect the right for someone to have a gun in their home or while hunting. Then he says, He has no problem with anyones right to bear arms. He can't grasp the meaning of the term "To Bear Arms". He is a sad, sad example of our Elite Liberal Citizens. Maybe some day a Patriot will save his ugly you know what! Good Day

Comment by: lwarner11-at-hotmail-dot-com (2/22/2006)

And after all of the posturing and name-calling is done, that is all this bill and any other like it do offer approval for someone to take the law into their own hands.

And, like all self-righteous do-gooders hiding their urge to rule, after all this author's own "posturing and name-calling," we get down to the crux of the matter: The Law Is Not Ours. It's Theirs.

We are not citizens, we're subjects who have no rights except those that aristocrats like this one see fit to grant us under their gracious noblesse oblige. Any attempt at securing our God-given human rights they see as lese majeste, a crime against the sovereign power.

But the law IS in our hands. Let's all make sure it stays there.

Comment by: thomaspaine@commonsense.org (2/22/2006)

Well gee. I guess the KKK and neo-nazis are afraid of blacks and Jews. We certainly can't let them live in fear now can we. By that liberal idiot's logic the government should start building camps and ovens so the skinheads can feel less afraid.

Comment by: gruhn@hwb.com (2/22/2006)

Where do your feelings cross my life?

If it makes you happy that I'm dead, I'd still rather not be dead.

Comment by: freedomlover (2/22/2006)

Robbie Schwartz wrote so many absurdities, it was kind of hard for me to pick a couple of them out to rebut, but I'll try:

Apparently, he thinks criminals only encroach upon others at their homes or while hunting. What fantasyland does he live in? And different guns are made for different purposes. Tell the military and the police they only "need" a shotgun and let's see how far you get!

Schwartz shows abysmal ignorance. I guess he'd be completely terrified of Alaska and Vermont where you don't need any damn permits to carry your gun concealed but the crime rate is lower than California and other gun hostile states!

Comment by: gruhn@hwb.com (2/22/2006)

Self defense is not even remotely related to "the law". It is not "taking the law into my hands." The law will "punish" a criminal. Self defense will stop the crime. The law is a statistical entity. My life is very personally mine. I can't be 12/1000th raped during the year 2006.

"Hey, I may have gotten murdered but that means thousands of other people didn't. So I'm happy for society."

BLEEP that.

Anybody who tells you that saving your own life is "taking the law into your hands" is stupid. Point and laugh.

Comment by: Tdoff (2/23/2006)

Info@, don't get hung up on "enumerated". In this case the proper terminology is "inherent", and there dang sure isn't an inherent right to "feel safe".

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people that think they have that right.

Comment by: tigerbones@localline.com (2/23/2006)

When someone comes kicking your door down in the night, will you wait for a law to be passed before you have the right to defend yourself. We have always had that right, it's called the Constitution. The right to 'bear arms' not only means to carry, but to use. When ignorant politicos pass ignorant laws, the only thing worse is ignorant law enforcement. They are the ones who come after your guns with theirs.

Comment by: mad Jack - Part 1 (2/23/2006)

My email to this cretin:

Robbie:

You have no inherent right to feel safe. You have the right to feel any way you choose, but the rest of the world is not responsible for your feelings. Judging from your response to Bruce, you feel angry and insecure. Your comment, Why hide behind a gun and deprive oneself of the satisfaction of feeling the bones break of someone when you hit them? leads me to believe that you are large, in good shape and are probably the worst kind of martial arts aficionado. You enjoy a significant advantage in a physical confrontation.

(con't)

Comment by: mad jack - Part 2 (2/23/2006)

(Con't from previous post)

Young man, Im none of those things. I carry a gun all the time, and Im good with it. Next time you get the urge to swing your fist and get some satisfaction, whether its a co-worker, a motorist who cut you off in traffic, or even your wife, stop and ask yourself if the victim is someone a little like me.

And by the way, writing disparaging comments about your wife doesnt endear you to anyone, least of all your wife, her Mother and her Father.

Sincerely,

Jack

Comment by: Garrett (2/23/2006)

Odd how he has no fear of getting shot by a criminal, just getting caught in a crossfire when an honest person defends themselves. Which is more likely to happen?

Comment by: DC (2/23/2006)

Why does his "right to not live in fear" trump my "right to not live in fear by carrying a gun to protect myself"?

In fact, as a law abiding citizen, my carrying a firearm creates a little area of safety around me everywhere I go. This scared little rabbit of an author gets this service free of charge.

You'd think he'd be thanking us for shouldering the responsibility and cost of being proficient with our personal arms.

Comment by: mad jack - Part 3 (2/23/2006)

Here's the response I got from Robbie this morning:

Don't you worry about me and my wife. We are just fine, thanks.

- end of message -

Looks like I touched a sore spot. Well, as the old saying goes, If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

Comment by: Longenecker (2/23/2006)

Right you are, guys.

I wrote him, too:

Robbie, you are wrong in your premises; first, as a right, no one else has a say in whether someone should or shouldn't: I do not have any say in whether you should write publicly or not, do I? If you think there's a difference, you have the wrong idea about rights.

(cont'd)

Comment by: Longenecker (2/23/2006)

Two, there is no such thing as vigilante justice: individuals have the right to self-defense, and the concept of punishing it is a relatively new concept in America. As sovereign persons, we are the law -- try making policy for police, such as eliminating choke-holds or high-speed chases and you can see that we have the authority. As such, citizens cannot take the law into their own hands: we are the law.

I understand how it's scary, but tying the hands of the law abiding givers to society is a new idea (about sixty years old) and is counterproductive to a free society.

It's time we returned trust back to our citizens: present conditions of suspicion of honest citizens has already gone too far.

JL

Comment by: Longenecker (2/23/2006)

...the part I didn't write was this:

Does your wife know you won't use force to defend her?

JL

Comment by: info@GunShowOnTheNet.com (2/23/2006)

Tdoff - You and I both know it is our inherent Right.

The author of the article doesn't, obviously.

'Inherent' can be construed as a supposition. Which opens the door for an argument. Enumerated suggests that it is a listed Right. Which it is, in FACT. A FACT which has direct bearing on the subject at hand, and which can readily be PROVEN. Showing the FACT held out as evidence as being JUST THAT - A FACT.

A supposition can be argued against. A FACT cannot.

Comment by: steelhead (2/23/2006)

"Why hide behind a gun and deprive oneself of the satisfaction of feeling the bones break of someone when you hit them?"
---
he must be a REALLY BAD DUDE!
I doubt it though. had he under gone such training in the fighting arts, he certainly would have been schooled in the real world threats that one might encounter in the daily process of life. His selfserving (certainly doesn't serve his wife for much protection, when Mr BS isn't available to break bones on a moments notice) attitude only makes me feel that he should make sure all his personal affairs are in order BEFORE his "next" bone-busting episode of BG's.
I would like to ask him how many times he's used this tactic successfully in the face of life threatning encounters

Comment by: steelhead (2/23/2006)

My email to the author: part 1
Sir,
After reading your column I feel compelled to write to you to inform you how empty and weak your view on this subject is. Defending one's self or family against a home invasion, or carjacking is hardly an act of vigilante justice. It is self preservation. This I have a right to. That warm cuddley feeling that you desire is just that, a feeling, not a right. The fact that you choose to let your wife/family depend soley on your great fighting skills (that you claim)as their only hope of surviving a potential life threatning situation is certainly your personal choice.

Comment by: steelhead (2/23/2006)

part2
I just wonder if the rest of the family is just as willing to stake THEIR lives on this method of survival by their own choice, or is it your choice?
**The graveyards are full of the ones who made the wrong choice

Comment by: Deadeye (2/23/2006)

Thomaspaine - I think the camps and ovens are for everyone who doesn't worship govt., nwo! They murdered the Branch Divinians using fbi hrt goons, with help from the us army. A trial run perhaps to gauge the reaction of the People. Better to die on your feet, and take as many of the enemys of Freedom with you, than live on your knees licking their jack boots!

Comment by: Mike (2/23/2006)

maybe one day a Patriot will save his ugly you know what!

then again maybe one won't

Comment by: Tdoff (2/24/2006)

Info@.... point taken. However, I'm sure that we can agree that there are other rights besides enumerated rights, but just because a right is enumerated it does not trump other inherent rights. Conversely, the author claims an inherent right to "feel" and he does have that right. "What" he feels has no bearing what-so-ever on my rights, enumerated or inherent.

The fact is, even enumerated rights are subject to litigation and this is what the author hopes to inspire with his feelings. Enumerated rights can be demolished with the stroke of a pen, Inherent rights can not.