DWC's Journal - Archives
"I made a traffic stop on an elderly lady the other day for speeding on U.S. 166 Eastbound at Mile Marker 73 just East of Sedan, KS.
I asked for her driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. The lady took out the required information and handed it to me.
In with the cards I was somewhat surprised (due to her advanced age) to see she had a conceal carry permit. I looked at her and asked if she had a weapon in her possession at this time. She responded that she indeed had a .45 automatic in her glove box.
Something---body language, or the way she said it---made me want to ask if she had any other firearms. She did admit to also having a 9mm Glock in her center console. Now I had to ask one more time if that was all. She responded once again that she did have just one more, a .38 special in her purse. I then asked her what was she so afraid of. She looked me right in the eye and said, "Not a fucking thing!"
I have worked on this problem for ~3 years. Some results of that effort can be seen at:
Do you think (paraphrasing your words) "there are a few women that use birth control. Most, however, would rather take advantage of an 'opportunity' to abort a fetus even if birth control or another option could be just as effective"?
Taking life, Any life, is devastating to those that must make that decision and haunts them for the rest of their lives. But in the real world there are situations in which that decision must be made.
Your ridicule of those who are prepared to make that decision, whether it be a responsible adults who are prepared to defend themselves and those in their charge or women who must determine to terminate a pregnancy has gone beyond the bar of any modicum of civility.
Enough is Enough.
My normal salutation is Semper Fi but you, sir or madam, just do not deserve it.
The concept works for National governments, State governments, County / Parish governments. and Municipal governments.
It works equally well for individuals who are free to govern themselves within Constitutionally consistent Law.
The philosophy instilled in most of us who have served in the military:
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; because I am the meanest mother f*#ker in this valley."
I was armed then. I am armed now.
I do support social welfare programs that provide a minimum safety net in times of need.
I do not support a social welfare State "cradle to the grave"
I do support the benefits of unions and the absolute right of anyone to join and be represented by a union.
I do support Right to Work by non-union members and the freedom of employers to hire and fire whomever they choose.
To assert that I "accept starvation as a form of population control" or for any purpose is beyond ridiculous and does not deserve a response.
I do support a standing military and the concept of Peace through Strength.
I do not support armed intervention to extend a forced political and/or economic agenda on other Sovereign Nations.
So, what "tag" fits?
Yes, Sovereign States have rights recognized by the Constitution. Smaller geopolitical entities such as counties and cities have rights recognized by the Sovereign States.
My intended point is that any group of individual citizens, joined in common purpose or cause (ie, a Collective) and recognizing the obvious exceptions stated above has, and can exercise no Rights beyond those held by its Individual members.
INDIVIDUAL: existing as a distinct, indivisible entity.
COLLECTIVE: denoting a number of individuals considered as one group or whole.
The 2nd amendment and all other civil rights recognized by the Constitution Collectively apply equally to each and every Individual Citizen of the USA.
Constitutionally compliant Laws regulating conduct Collectively apply equally to each and every Citizen Individually.
Each and every individual Citizen is responsible for his/her conduct and compliance with the Law. Failure to do so brings individual penalty. “Collective” penalties do not exist under our Constitution.
America as a body politic is made up of over 300,000,000 individuals; each at liberty to exercise their individual civil rights as they see fit within the limits of Constitutionally compliant Law which applies Collectively with equality for all.
All Rights are to the Individual
All Responsibility for conduct is borne by the Individual
All Rights and Responsibilities are recognized Collectively with Equality for All.
That is my take on my unalienable right to keep and bare arms.
What is yours?
is the protection and defense of those in their charge and themselves.
Sadly, all you have shown is that these adult, citizen victims appear to have been unprepared to defend themselves or the child in their charge. They apparently expected this situation to never happen to them and, if it did, expected police to protect them.
You asked where were the CCW neighbors? One armed neighbor did assist in taking the murder down 11 minutes into the attack. The real question is why were the homeowners not armed and prepared to defend themselves and those in their charge?
You have provided an example of tragic situation where guns in the hands of intended victims trained in their use would have saved lives.
Different name. Possibly different stated gender. Exactly the same style and narcissistic, elitist BS.
by teenagers is burglary or covert theft from family, family friends, and neighbors.
It is more than reasonable to consider that anyone who keeps guns in their home for defense, or any other purpose, and does not have a viable electronic alarm system seriously needs to reconsider their priorities.
Historically, the conflict between the need to have immediate, unrestricted access to a defensive firearm by authorized individuals while highly restricting covert access to unauthorized individuals has been irreconcilable.
I have just entered my 5th decade in the electronic alarm industry and have been committed in a full time effort to resolving or at least mitigating this conflict since February, 2009.
No, I do not have all of the answers but I do have some of them.
No, I do not know all of the questions but I do know most of them.
Over 80% of all firearms used in violent crime have been stolen, at some point since manufacturer, from an honest person.
My life's work is to dramatically reduce that number.
Your words, not mine
In truth, it saddens me that there are honest, well intentioned, responsible citizens that do not trust other honest, well intentioned, responsible citizens with the freedom to exercise their Constitutional Rights.
It seems you feel if all honest, well intentioned, responsible citizens are disarmed then all will be equally subject to the force of the predators thus reducing your personal exposure as just another member of the defenseless herd.
That way you don't have to outrun everyone to be safe, just those too old or young or weak to keep up.
Herds of animals; schools of fish; flocks of birds; and disarmed people all share one thing in common. Their only defense is to hide in the group and hope for the best.
But wait, what if a violent criminal or crazy catches you seperated from the herd with no place to hide? Well, predators and crazies have needs too.
and for many of us, our guns are a primary reason we have lived long enough to become GOMWG
The longer we live, the more we tend to value life. We GOMWG do not intend to give up what little we have left easily.
(This was fun!)
I thank all, on both sides of the issue, for your input. Besides a small amount of drive-by BS, most of the posts contain legitimate responses to the two questions asked.
I derive from this non-scientific sample that:
1. Gun control advocates are much more prepared than pro gun advocates to subordinate individual civil rights to what they perceive as the benefit of the collective.
2. Pro gun advocates are much more prepared than gun control advocates to trust their fellow citizens to exercise their civil rights within the confines of Constitutionally compliant Law.
3. Pro gun advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of individual rights balanced by individual responsibility.
4. Gun control advocates generally approach the question from the perspective of the overall collective.
Again, my Thanks and
To your question "Have you ever been attacked and had to use your gun?" My answer is yes. The first time was against an armed burglar in my home. The second was a violent car jacking.
In both cases I did not have to fire a shot.
In both cases I was fully prepared to empty the magazine into the bad guys and the bad guys knew it.
In both cases I did not give a hoot-in-hell if my actions were good or bad for society.
From personal experience, I can guarantee when anyone is being violently attacked, the last thing on their mind in how society might "feel" about the fact that they will do ANYTHING possible to successfully defended themselves.
May be found in how we perceive our own individual rights and responsibilities as citizens of The United States of America and Trust in our fellow citizens to exercise their rights responsibly.
I support all civil rights of which my right to keep and bear arms is included. I also recognize my responsibility to exercise those rights within the framework of the Law. I trust in my fellow citizens to do the same.
There will always be criminals and crazies and they are responsible to society for their individual actions. Unless I become one of them, I am not and shall not suffer limitations beyond the Constitution because of them.
Why are we having this debate - really?
I sincerely ask for your thoughts.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Impeachment is the only cure for the Supreme Court
Did "NoElephants" pass away??
A Giant Union Is Planning to Protest the Oscars
Happy Valentines Day, old friends!
NEVER trust government. nt
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.