Number One with a Bullet

Well, we haven’t done Bill Whittle for a while, so let’s have a look at his latest shall we.

He here brings us the numbers to back up what any rational man knows, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It’s like I always say, the safest place in America is a honky-tonk bar out here in the west, where everyone (and I do mean everyone) is carrying at least one gun, plus assorted cutlery. Here’s Bill.

It’s so simple even a Librul should be able to figure it out, although since they consistently add apples and oranges and get lemonade, that might be wishful thinking.

 

Robert A. Heinlein said it long ago

An armed society is a polite society

Alone and Defenseless

The Equalizer

The Equalizer

Although as we have often said here, protection from criminal acts is not, and never was, the purpose of our second amendment, its purpose is to allow ourselves to defend ourselves against a criminal government, it is a comforting side benefit. It is also one that the cousins, who taught us the lesson, forgot and gave away.

But some are thinking about it again, not so much with regard to its real purpose as spelled out here but, in response to the terror threat, which is certainly valid, both currently and historically.

[…]

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

[…]

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;[…]

From the English Bill of Rights, 1689, and if you’ve been paying attention you will hear echoes of Magna Charta here. This is the primary source document for our American Bill of Rights, and why we defend our ancient rights, so fiercely.

But we do so alone, only America still has some most of those rights. But, perhaps some Brits are wakening up finally. This is from American Thinker on 23 January of 2015.

Alone and Defenseless: A UK Citizen’s call for arms

In August 2014 the independent government advisory group in the UK known as JTAC (Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre) raised the threat level for the entire UK (including Northern Ireland) to “Severe,” one step down from the maximum Critical level, where it has remained to this day some 5 months on. In the words of the conservative home secretary two days ago — attacks in the UK are “very likely.

The threat of marauding gunmen in a city, so vividly illustrated at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Kosher supermarket, has been clearly apparent to western nations since the horrific Mumbai attacks in 2008. MI5 have confirmed that the Syrian arm of a resurgent al-Qaeda is planning similar attacks against the UK, possibly by British jihadists who have already returned from fighting in Syria or Iraq. They include plans to blow up a passenger jet, employ Mumbai style shootings in crowded places or even hit-and-run attacks using vehicles (an attack style employed in France in Christmas 2014). Andrew Parker (Director General of the security service MI5) said the number of random “crude and potentially deadly” plots from “lone wolf” extremists was increasing. In a stark warning, he said: “Although we and our partners try our utmost, we know we cannot hope to stop everything.”

This is where we find ourselves now. Every citizen in Europe and the UK faces the risk of an Islamic attack merely while going about normal day-to-day business. UK citizens in particular face this risk whilst being denied weapons of self defense. In the past I have fully and enthusiastically supported the UK’s complete ban on hand guns. But immediately after the killing of Lee Rigby I began to reconsider the wisdom of that ban and I now utterly oppose it. As things stand in the UK, hand guns are illegal. For those shotguns you could own, extremely strict licensing specifically disallows self defense as a motive for ownership and so the old adage “In countries where guns are illegal, only the criminals have guns” is the frankly mad situation we now have in the UK.

Articles: Alone and Defenseless: A UK Citizen’s call for arms.

Good luck to him, he’s right but, I doubt he’ll ever convince many of his fellow subjects, let alone HM Government.

And all of us should remember

When you need the police in seconds, they’re only minutes away

and in Britain the armed police may be hours away.

Concealed Carry and the Right of Self-Defense

Feb25We haven’t been talking a lot about this lately mostly because other than a few loonies like NYC’s mayor, few are pushing it. But as always, we need to pay attention.

One thing that struck me as we all watched the events in Paris, is how helpless Europeans have become, simply passive sheep awaiting slaughter. Nor was it the first time these thoughts were in my mind.

Most of you know that I have many friends in Britain, and a while back when Drummer Rigby was butchered in Woolwich, we talked about it both on the Watchtower and I expanded on those comments here. It was very interesting to see the differences in  the American viewpoint contrasted with the British, and I suspect continental Europeans are even more passive.

In fact, the passivity contained in the comment by a distinguished British educator chilled my blood.

We are entirely dependent upon the Police”

My response was as follows:

It’s true of course, most of us have read of British subjects sentenced to life in prison for defending themselves in their home from an armed assailant. And I’m certain I speak for most American when I say, with that system, you are not free. To me and most likely to my compatriots it brings to mind a phrase that Thomas Jefferson used.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.”

Which translates as,

“I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.”

This was brought to mind this morning as I read from Dave “the Sage”, in his usual, calm rational style the case for the armed citizen, which is as true today as it was when the right was written into Magna Charta 800 years ago., thereby codifying an existing right. Here’s a piece  of it:

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” 

–  Sigmund Freud

[…]

The truth is often very simple. The law-abiding, gun-owning citizen is not the problem but for some reason is often the target of those who seek to disarm the populace.

When I received my concealed handgun permit it required little more than having the right sheriff, taking a hunters safety course, filling out a questionnaire, not having a criminal record, and writing a check. They have since tightened the restrictions a bit, but not by much if you know the right NRA instructor. Seventy-five dollars can get you an afternoon of target practice, training, and your ticket to the coveted concealed-carry permit if you are willing to do your homework.

Think of the growing number of concealed handgun permit holders as thousands of walking safety bubbles moving throughout society and undoubtedly crossing your path while potentially protecting you and your family without you even knowing it. You can live as a victim subject to the whim of criminals and crazies or you can live as a free man and have the potential to protect yourself, your family, and your community. I choose the latter.

[…]

No one should insist on leaving entire sections of the community open and helpless to the predations of murderous psychopaths. It is important to attempt to help change a culture that has wandered hopelessly off the path of logic and common sense, and help to rectify the pathetically failed policies that cost some people their lives. I can think of nothing more important to address than that. People are dead because of others stupidity and continual striving for a utopian nanny state. That cannot be excused or allowed to continue anymore.

Free Americans should have the right to defend themselves from the more unsavory elements of society that attempt to prey upon or outright kill them.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

— Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Concealed Carry and the Right of Self-Defense ⋆ Dc Gazette.

It strikes me that the main problem with the Europeans, and with some segments in America as well, is that they have abdicated the right to be a free person, along with (or perhaps because of) the concomitant obligation to act in their own interest. And so they sold their freedom for a little temporary safety, and as always, they soon shall have neither.

A Beheading in Oklahoma

From Bill Whittle

 

Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk.

Margaret Chase Smith

Gaza, Israel, and Respect for Life

Israel-Flag-Flying2-2009So we are starting to see a few Palestinians die. Without being overly hard about it, why are you surprised? I did a little checking yesterday on just how big Israel is. It’s almost the same size an Maryland. That’s pretty damned small, hard to understand why anyone thinks they should cower forever in their shelters while 2000+ artillery rockets go off on the civilization they built.

Here you go.

Name Area in square Miles
Nebraska 77,358
Maryland 10,455
England 50,346
Israel 10,425
United States 3,140,000

Seems to me the British tried that one time in Maryland, some lawyer wrote a song about it, it starts, “O, say can you see…”. And the thing is the British, honorable people that they are, were attacking Fort McHenry, not Baltimore. Nor did the Americans pack the population of Baltimore into the fort, and leave them sitting on the powder magazines.

And just how long should the Israelis sit in their shelters with the economy more or less stopped, trading $60K anti-missile missiles for $1000 artillery rockets?

The closest comparison I can come up with is the German’s V weapons campaign in 1944 against the south of England. What was the response? United States 8th Air Force, and 9th Air Force, and RAF Bomber Command all diverted much effort from the air war to hunting the launch sites, and there was no attempt to limit civilian casualties. It was marginally effective at best, the problem was solved by infantry on the ground, and the complete suppression of Nazi Germany.

For me this cartoon summarizes the whole thing:

Juice2

It is admittedly difficult to root out combatants who attempt to hide behind women and children. At least without harming aforesaid women and children.

The Israelis, member of western civilization, that they are, are risking their soldiery, by going far out of their way to protect so-called civilians in Gaza, even as they know they will simply be damned for it.

Under any moral system, they would be completely justified going in behind a wall of fire not seen since Russia took Berlin, or the Allies bombed Dresden. I’m not sure that any solution short of that will solve the problem of living next door to a state whose very constitution calls for the destruction of your country, and the extermination of your population. An American general, fighting the Indian wars in Colorado during the Civil war once remarked, “Nits grow into lice,” it strikes me as appropriate.

6a00d8341c60bf53ef017744d4c663970d-300wi

 

You know, the opponents of Israel like to compare her to the United States by referring to her as ‘Little Satan’ even as they refer to the United States as ‘Great Satan’. They think it pejorative, I think it a great compliment. And our commitment to protecting life is once again being demonstrated in Gaza, as once again Israel expends blood and treasure to protect those who would harm her.

iStock 20492165 MD - American and Israeli flags

 

Not One of Us?

At some point, we will have to decide the question. Here is Bill Whittle’s decision.

I’m pretty much in agreement. How do you see it?

%d bloggers like this: