Free Utah Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

June 11, 2009

People ask Why?

Filed under: Right to Keep and Bear Arms — admin @ 1:56 pm

Why I Carry a Gun

My old grandpa said to me son,’ there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a whoopin’.

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a whoopin’.

..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

March 9, 2009

Why the Gun is Civilization

Filed under: Right to Keep and Bear Arms,Self Reliance — admin @ 6:00 pm

I have often had very similar thoughts, but I have never seen them expressed so well:

Originally written by Marco (the munchkin wrangler), Friday, March 23, 2007

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

February 28, 2009

Professor Called Police After Student Presentation

Filed under: Freedom of Speech,Right to Keep and Bear Arms — admin @ 4:54 pm

24 Feb 2009 – “The Record” online, Central Connecticut State University
-Shauna Simeone, Asst. Opinion Editor

For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.

On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.

They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.

“I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station,” Wahlberg said, “but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices.”

Professor Anderson refused to comment directly on the situation and deferred further comment.

“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she wrote in a statement submitted to The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”

Wahlberg believes that her complaint was filed without good reason.

“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly nonthreatening matter. Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat,” Wahlberg said in response. “The actions of Professor Anderson made me so uncomfortable, that I didn’t attend several classes. The only appropriate action taken by the Professor was to excuse my absences.”

The university police were unavailable for comment.

“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

February 26, 2009

It is closer to reality than you think

Filed under: Right to Keep and Bear Arms — admin @ 9:31 am

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.  With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.  You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.  In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.  When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.  The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.  As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.  Yours was never registered.  Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.  When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.  “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them.  Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.  As the days wear on, the story takes wings.  The national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.  The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.  After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.  The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.  The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.  When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

A Similar case really happened.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/News/Index/TonyMartin.asp

(Note that the above referenced link differs some from this story below)

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.  In April, 2000, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.  This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.  The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.  Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.  (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.  Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.  Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.  The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.  Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.  Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.  Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?  The guns had been registered and licensed.  Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” –Samuel Adams

February 23, 2009

Vote With Your Dollars

Think about it . . . every time you spend money you are voting. Are you voting to preserve morality and freedom, or are you voting for corruption and despotism?

Part of every dollar you spend gets donated to further some cause. This is just a fact of business.  All businesses support “non profit” organizations in one form or another, and the bigger the business the more money they feed to such organizations. The only way you can influence where this money goes is by adjusting your spending habits and telling companies why you choose not to do business with them.

While you are giving this some thought, think also about the fact that freedom and morality are inseparably connected.  It is impossible for an immoral people to remain free.

November 16, 2001

Boycott Sara Lee

Filed under: Right to Keep and Bear Arms — admin @ 2:08 pm

Boycott Sara Lee Corporation! Women Against Gun Control urges gun rights supporters everywhere to participate in a world-wide boycott of Sara Lee products. The boycott is to protest Sara Lee’s presentation of its “Humanities” award to Sarah Brady, as well as its donation of  $50,000 to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

Stop buying products distributed by Sara Lee or its subsidiaries: Sara Lee, Ball Park, Hillshire Farm, Jimmy Dean, Aoste, Douwe Egberts, Hanes, Hanes Her Way, L’eggs, Bali, Playtex, Champion, Coach, Dim, Sanex and Kiwi. Let Sara Lee know that you disapprove of its efforts to undermine your Second Amendment rights. Call, write, fax, or email Sara Lee today!

Contact Info. for Sara Lee Corporation

3 First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60602-4260
Ph: 800-621-5235
Fax: 312-726-3712
Web comment form: http://www.saralee.com/tools/suggestions/

April 23, 2001

Blame it on the Guns

Filed under: Right to Keep and Bear Arms — admin @ 2:42 pm

For the life of me, I can’t understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, Colo. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn’t have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns.

It couldn’t have been because of half our children being raised in broken homes. It couldn’t have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day.  After all, we give our children quality time.

It couldn’t have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. It couldn’t have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure than no blood is spilled.

It couldn’t have been because we allow our children to watch, on average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn’t fit for adult consumption.

It couldn’t have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible.

It couldn’t have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love.

It couldn’t have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time.

It couldn’t have been because our nation is the world leader in developing a culture of death in which 20 million to 30 million babies have been killed by abortion.

It couldn’t have been because we give two-year prison sentences to teen-agers who kill their newborns. It couldn’t have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution as fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy.

It couldn’t have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don’t have consequences. What the heck, the president gets away with it.

Nah, it must have been the guns.

May 21, 1999

An Open Letter to Elder Alexander Morrison

Filed under: Right to Keep and Bear Arms — admin @ 1:54 pm

Dear Elder Morrison,

In your recent interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, you are quoted as asking “What sensible reason could there ever be for having guns in schools?”

I can give one very important one. To protect our children.

About eight years ago, Israel was experiencing a dilemma much like we are facing here in the U.S. today. Terrorist attacks on school children were taking hundreds of live each year and completely disrupting their school system. They, too, realized that they must take action to protect their children.

Unlike the American public, the Israelis had not been brain washed into believing that an inanimate object had the power and ability to act on its own without the will and choice of a human being. They decided that the real way to protect their children was to give those responsible for their schools the tools to honestly do something other than whine and pretend that they were doing something constructive. Israel trained and armed the teachers and administrators.

In the last eight years, there have been only four deaths of Israeli school children from attack while engaged in school activity. Those four deaths came on a field trip to Jordan where, at the request of the Jordanian government, they left their weapons home as they traveled to a “Mecca of peace.” Shortly after arriving, they were attacked by terrorists and four children lost their lives because the adults with them were powerless to protect them.

All it takes to realize that disarming any people, or group of people, accomplishes is to make them a sitting target for those of evil intent. This has held true throughout the world and through all recorded history. Every time a people has been deprived of the means of self defense, they have been enslaved and slaughtered. Not just a few times, but EVERY TIME! I can find over thirty (30) such times in the last century alone.

If by some chance you have an honest interest in understanding the truth about the gun control issues, I can provide you with large amounts of documentary evidence that banning guns has not and will not provide ANY level of safety for our children. In fact, almost all of the refereed research shows that banning guns only increases the death and violence.

As one easy example, take a look at Washington D.C., where guns are banned completely. Washington D.C. has the highest rate of murder by firearms in the nation. Conversely, the State of Vermont, where there are NO restrictions on the carrying of weapons by law abiding citizens, has one of the lowest in the country and is the ONLY state where there has not been a copycat threat since the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado.

Now, lest you misunderstand my position, I support swift and severe punishment of those who would misuse a weapon, ANY weapon, not just a gun. This include such things a knives, baseball bats, rocks, automobiles and turnips. Yes, automobiles. There was an incident in California just a few weeks ago where a despondent man intent on killing several people in order to bring attention to his emotional troubles used a Cadillac to kill four children and injure several others in a schoolyard. I’m certain that you have heard no outcry to ban cars. In fact, the story was buried on page 10 of the Los Angeles Times and completely ignored by most of the wire services. In 1994 there was a case of a person being killed in England by a turnip thrown from a passing vehicle. It makes no difference what the weapon is, it is a person that commits the crime and it is the person that should be punished.

Instead of reacting to the emotional outcry echoed and amplified by those who would enslave people and destroy freedom, study, think, and pray about what is needed to restore civility and order.

Powered by WordPress

© 1999-2020 Free Utah All Rights Reserved