Wednesday, May 08, 2013

Summary Of Women, Home & Like Defense

The Costs Of NOT Having Guns For Defense

Some few days ago I heard, on TV,  an anti-gun proponent decry the medical and other costs of the People's common and considerable access to guns.

But, what are the medical, psychological and other "costs" to unprotected people  (The police are always too few and too late to protect)  who are killed, physically and emotionally  maimed and lose forever that part of their lives which were expended in honestly earning the money to obtain what lawfully belongs to them---When they are unable to effectively and immediately protect themselves by the use (Or, as is more common, the "mere" pointing) of a gun?

Saturday, February 09, 2013

Women, Self-Defemse & Protecting Others

The October 21, 2012 mass shootings in a Brookfield, Wisconsin salon demonstrate just how effective is an over-dependence on "restraining orders" to prevent somestic violence. It is only a piece-of-paper and will not stop a bullet (Or other weapons which I will not mention as they might give someone some very bad ideas for WMD). It also and clearly demonstrate the inability of the always too late police to protect anyyone and everyone from all dangerous criminals.

In true and serious cases of domestic abuse the potential victim (Usually, but not always, women) should be advised to also obtain a license to carry concealed weapons, obtain a concealable handgun, learn to use it (At the usual short range of related shootings) AND carry that weapon, knowledge and intent where ever they go.

Had Ms. Zina Haughton (The primary target) done so she and the others murdered  by her lack of effective preventive actions might still be alive and uninjured.
It appears that lazy police, inattentive prosecutors, the courts' use of restraining orders and various counseling programs have not stopped determined and murder-minded domestic abusers.

The "hard lesson" is that such terrorists (Like others I could name) are stopped only by deadly force. When the attacks of such creatures are seconds away, the police are minutes or hours away. Therefore, it is the right and, perhaps, the duty of threatened persons to protect themselves. In this era, that means having a CCW license, possessing a concealable firearm, knowing how to use it (At the close ranges usual in such matters) and carry the gun, training and intent with them at all times.

"Gun control" has never worked. There are alternatives to guns abd some easily available WMD much more dangerous than handguns or long-arm.

Legislators AND all others should remember that possessing firearms is now a constitutional right which may be limited or revoked only by due process of law.  The kangaroo court responses to petitions for restraining orders do not meet that standard!  [Although I have never been a subject for any restraining order, I know of cases where no proofs were offered to support such petitions beyond petitioners' claims of abuse.]
Please remember the "woman in the attic who protected herself and her child by (Only) driving away an armed intruder with the only six rounds available to her.

Excellent Self-Training Source: Tomkin, Mattherw; (DVD) Shoot Him To The Ground---Tactical Point Shooting for the  21st Century; Paladin Press.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

How Many Rounds In Citizens Guns?

There is much current debate as to what limits, if any, should be placed on the number of rounds citizens should be allowed to have in their firearms---Especially those semi-automatic rifles, most specially those which "look like" those "scary" true, fully automatic, "assault rifles".

Estimates for trained soldiers have indicated that it takes from 30 (In urban combat_ to
250,000+ for Viet Nam, where rotary-machine guns were commonly used to kill an enemy.

In the heat, fear, uncertainty of a home/business invasion I doubt that we can expect too much more of citizens, even at the point-blank ranges in such events, as: The usual such "invasion" is by three thugs; And, it generally takes three+ rounds (Dependent on placement) to immobilize (Or kill) an enemy soldier or a criminal   For those who have forgotten their grade-school mathematics:  Three-thugs X Three rounds each = Nine rounds which is more than in Mr. Joseph Biden's double-barreled shotgun or the seven-round limit imposed by New York's pro-death (For law abiding citizens) Legislature and Governor.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Mentally Ill Vs. Dangerously So & Guns

I am becoming more-and-more disturbed  about the far too many politicians, news commentators/reporters, those opposed to the fullest exercise of Second Amendment rights and others of that ilk who loosely  substitute the terms  "mentally ill"  OR "emotionally disturbed", for the more accurate term "dangerous mentally ill" as to those who should not be allowed to obtain firearms.

It is fit-and-proper and legally/constitutionally-sound  that someone should be declared "Dangerously Mentally Ill" only after a fact-based and contested hearing before a judge-and-jury, in accordance with our 1000 year old system of laws and our Constitution. Why? Because to tag any citizen as being "dangerously mentally ill" takes from such citizens as many civil and political rights as a conviction of a felony---And, deserves the same legal protections.  

At this time there are too many government units (eg -- The FBI) who will accept the unverified and non-judicial comments of some (Anonymous?) Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Other-persons as sufficient "Proof" to deprive citizens of a basic civil right.  Even super-sane me (If, and only if,  you accept my self-diagnosis)  once consulted a psychologist, with my wife, to iron out some marital problems---Which smoothing did occur. .

 Should I or some child with home/school problems who sees a school psychologist or some active-duty member of the Armed Forces/Veteran for whom war/other-problems has resulted in s/he seeking counseling, and other like and law-abiding citizens be deprived of a basic civil right without "due process of law"? [I believe we have another, of too many  Federal Laws which provides for both criminal and civil prosecution for "Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color Of Law" which should deal with and punish those who would do so to those who are not dangerously mentally ill.

the FBI has reportedly placed entire groups of innocent military veterans on the "no buy"  list and that without "due process of law".

Friday, December 23, 2011

Why CCW Is Better Than Open Carry

One of the disadvantages of the open carrying of weapons (For some time allowed to all adult citizens not on probation or parole) is contained in the unlawful harassment of some legally (And openly) "carrying" citizens in Madison, WI. That case involved a mob of Madison, WI police officers confronting five such legally, openly and peacefully armed citizens. Those who overcame probable fear of unstable an unconstitutional armed police officers were illegally arrested. That asinine police misbehavior cost the City of Madison $10,000.00.

Milwaukee has Edward (SS-und PolizieFuhrer) Flynn who has stated that "his" (Gee whiz, I thought they "belonged" to the citizens of that city) officers are to "take to the ground" any (Openly) armed person until they can "prove" they have a right to go armed. With that prior statement, I suggest that any citizen attacked in that manner should NOT settle for less than $100,000.00.

The other reasons for concealed carry are:
A. To avoid upsetting those immature persons who get upset stomachs and egos upon seeing an armed and law-abiding citizen who is, I presume, willing and able to defend self against criminal attacks---And to protect fellow citizens;
B. To not draw the first fire of such criminals and to allow the armed citizen to "surprise" such critters.

No comments: