Quote of the Day

The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character.

Source

see also:

•  Adolf Hitler And Gun Control: What Did Hitler Really Say, And Do, About Gun Rights?
•  The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

What's a better means of protection than a gun...

Well, pretty much anything as this video demonstrates.

Another statement of the concept of due process

Another statement of the concept of due process guaranteed by the US Constitution's  Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which defines the right to life as follows:

    "1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
    2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
        (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
        (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
        (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

The reason that "get away with murder" laws violate due process is that they sanction the extra-judicial taking of life, which contradicts 800 years of legal history.

BTW,  In Evans v United Kingdom, the Court ruled that the right to life does not extend to a human embryo.

The Missing NRA response???

The Daily Kos hits the nail on the head with:

Why Isn't NRA Arguing Trayvon Martin Tragedy Could Have Been Averted if Only He Had a Gun?

Seriously!  Come on--stand your ground has nothing to do with it?

Yeah, but what if Trayvon did have a gun?  Anyway, the Daily Kos goes on:

Sometimes, silence is much more revealing than those words actually spoken. Such is the case with respect to how the NRA has responded to the George Zimmerman verdict: with virtual silence.

One might expect the NRA to respond to Trayvon Martin's death by calling upon young, black men across this country to arm themselves, since the only way to truly protect oneself from the threat of violence in this country is to own a firearm. To exercise one's Second Amendment right.

After all, that's how it's responded to any number of shootings in which white people have been killed in mass shootings.

Of course, by expect, I mean the opposite, an ironic point made by a Tweet yesterday from Anonymous:

The Daily Kos gives the following conclusion for the silence about having an armed victim in this case:

We know the reason why. For when the NRA lobbied hard for the Stand Your Ground law in Florida which allowed Zimmerman to murder a young, black youth, it did so with a vision of white 'victimhood' – and gun sales to white Americans – in mind.

Of course, the "pro-gun" side likes to point out how gun laws are racist.  I mean when the black panthers started parading around with guns, we saw a slew of gun control laws come out.

But, white guys go trotting around with assault rifles and making seditious remarks?

Yeah, it's pretty clear what's going on here?

Gun owners aren't victims--they are the ones killing people.

And more than are few are getting away with murder.

The ultimate in "get away with murder" law stupidity

This headline says it all:

Defense: 'Stand your ground' should apply to intruder who killed man in apartment

A South Carolina Supreme Court order has brought a Columbia murder trial to a screeching halt after the alleged gunman's attorney argued the state's 'stand your ground' law should be invoked because his client feared for his own life after breaking into another man's apartment.

Well, he is an "otherwise law abiding citizen"--it's those pesky laws that make them criminals.

The Absurdity of "Get Away with Murder" Laws

The following is an illustration of the potentially serious problems posed by changes in no-retreat laws, the "Get Away with Murder" laws:

Imagine that a nine-year-old girl is playing with her dolls outside her home. In the house next door, a known drug-dealer, Red Rock, is selling drugs when he notices a rival drug-dealer, Yellow Man, with whom he had an earlier confrontation, coming down the street.  Red Rock retrieves a semiautomatic assault rifle to defend himself. Shots are exchanged, and in the aftermath, the little girl, once playing innocently, lies dead.

Both Red Rock and Yellow Man claim self-defense through the unprecedented changes in the Castle Doctrine law. (Although Red Rock was a criminal, a “prohibited person” can possess a firearm for short periods of time in matters of self-defense. So long as Red Rock did not own the firearm nor live in the residence where the firearm was located, he could invoke a legal defense under the expanded Castle Doctrine.)

If law enforcement cannot prove that Red Rock was engaged in an unlawful activity and that his fear of imminent bodily harm was unreasonable, he could claim self-defense. Likewise, assuming Yellow Man could legally possess a weapon, he would be justified in using a firearm in self-defense. This eliminates any legal recourse, civil or criminal, for the violent death of an innocent nine-year-old girl. Because the legislature provided blanket immunity for “self-defense,” courts are faced with situations
in which a deadly defense may be legally justified, even if negligently or recklessly executed.

On the other hand, if the Castle Doctrine had not been expanded, Red Rock would have been required to retreat to anarea—such as his home—that was safe. If he had done so,then innocent bystanders would have been spared even if theconfrontation had occurred.

Would this shooting have been avoided if the Castle Doctrine were not expanded? Perhaps not, but the family of the victim would have legal remedies, and the two perpetrators could be held responsible for their actions rather than using the Castle Doctrine as a shield from the criminal and civil justice systems.

Sadly, this scenario is not fictional. It is based on a 2006 homicide case in Miami-Dade County. Source: Expansions to the Castle Doctrine

Just because he was declared "not guilty" by a jury doesn't mean he didn't do it.

I'm going to quote something I read on Gawker:

"If you want to get into a technical argument that it's only murder if it's "unlawful," and that if this trial by jury fails to produce a conviction, then the killing is not unlawful and therefore is not murder—well, presumably you also would argue that O.J. Simpson did not murder his wife. But why are you trying to make the argument at all? Why do you want to believe that an armed man shooting and killing an unarmed 17-year-old boy is lawful? What makes you think this way?"

http://gawker.com/will-george-zimmerman-get-away-with-murder-757850043

BTW, what about the right to due process of law which was denied to Trayvon Martin?  Didn't he have rights?

Of course, we need to see more of the absurdities of "get away with murder" laws come to light and then there will be a revolt against your "Pro-gun" silliness.

Seriously, an unarmed person goes to the store and buys something. He is then accosted on the street by an armed person who kills him. Then, the person who kills him claims self-defence.

Isn't that obviously a ridiculous proposition?

One cannot exceed the reasonable amount of force necessary to stop the threat without becoming the aggressor.  That is how self-defence is supposed to work under the rule of law.

Investigation Discovery’s “Homicide Hunter: Lt. Joe Kenda” on guns for self-defence.

Retired Colorado Springs police detective Lt. Joe Kenda. In 1973 he joined the Colorado Springs police department. He retired after more than two decades as a detective in 1996. This is his response on why he no longer carries a gun:

It always amuses me when you see all of these idiots today that want to carry a gun. The human body is not designed to carry a gun. It hurts no matter where you put it — and trust me, I’ve tried them all. I had to carry a gun. But I certainly don’t have to now — and I don’t. I have a neighbor — a little old man who comes over, he listens to the press that says, ‘You’re all going to die any minute. Now the news, brought to you by Chicken Little,’ you know? So he buys a gun. The guy’s 78. And he shows me this handgun he bought. He says, ‘You know a lot about guns — anything I should do?’ I says, ‘Yeah — do you have a vice in your garage?’ ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Go put that in the vice and file off that front sight blade.’ ‘Well, why should I do that?’ I said, ‘So when somebody takes it away from you and sticks it up your @#$%, it won’t hurt so bad when they take it out.’ And he just looked at me … he took the gun back to the store. Good choice. You don’t need a gun.

I used to do a lot of public speaking for the police department. I’d say, ‘What’s the position of the department on gun control?’ They’d say, ‘The department doesn’t have a position — we enforce the law as it’s written.’ ‘Would you like to know my personal opinion?’ ‘Absolutely!’ — because it’s always a gun freak that’s asking you the question. So I said, ‘Picture yourself at Mile High [Stadium] in Denver during a Bronco game. You’re on the 50-yard line at halftime. You are surrounded by 74,000 emotional drunks. Behind you on a table are 74,000 guns. Would you give one to everybody there? Or would you try to be selective on who you gave one to?’ And the crowd would laugh, and the guy would sit down. Nobody needs a gun. They all need a brain — but they don’t need a gun. We shouldn’t even let people drive, let alone people have guns. But they have cars, and they drive. But not guns — this society doesn’t need guns. But it’s too late. There are 150 million guns in private hands. I can’t tell you how many times I have investigated a death in a private home caused by a gun that was purchased to protect that same person — who is now dead from that gun, by accident; by suicide or by murder. So how did that purchase work out? Not very well.

And before you make stupid comments--my concealed carry permit expired in 2007.

Virginia Woman Claims Self-Defense - Guilty of Brandishing

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports

A Chesterfield County woman was found guilty Tuesday of brandishing her husband's pistol at several teens and placing the gun to a 16-year-old's head after claiming she was threatened and repeatedly cursed as she tried driving through her neighborhood.

 It was a long complicated story, which had me sympathetic to the woman, but here's the bottom line.

"You don't get to claim self-defense when you're the aggressor,"

What's your opinion? Does it remind you of the Zimmerman case? Do you think it's somewhat common for gun owners to overstep their bounds like this, confronting people, admonishing them for perceived wrongdoing? When the tables are turned, they claim self-defense.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Brandishing a firearm

This should give Greg nightmares:

2010 Arkansas Code
Title 5 - Criminal Offenses
Subtitle 2 - Offenses Against The Person
Chapter 13 - Assault And Battery
Subchapter 2 - Offenses Generally
§ 5-13-204 - Aggravated assault.

5-13-204. Aggravated assault.

(a) A person commits aggravated assault if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he or she purposely:

(1) Engages in conduct that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person;

(2) Displays a firearm in such a manner that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person; or

(3) Impedes or prevents the respiration of another person or the circulation of another person's blood by applying pressure on the throat or neck or by blocking the nose or mouth of the other person.

(b) Aggravated assault is a Class D felony.

(c) The provisions of this section do not apply to:

(1) A law enforcement officer acting within the scope of his or her duty; or

(2) A person acting in self-defense or the defense of a third party.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Arkansas may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

Better be correct in your judgement when you pull out that gun, Greg, or you are in legal deep shit!

Blocking firearms

Some self-defence systems teach how to disarm people with firearms, in particular krav maga. Krav maga is the IDF method of self-defence.

How To Disarm A Gun? -

The fact that someone who is facing the possiblity of being shot might resist is something you seem to neglect in your worship of the firearm.

San Francisco Shooting Leaves 2 Dead and 1 Wounded

The Sacramento Bee reports

Police detained several people after a shooting that left two men dead and another wounded in San Francisco's Bernal Heights neighborhood.

San Francisco police said the shooting occurred Saturday night at about 7:20 p.m. near Holly Park Circle.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the two men who died were ages 21and 26. A 30-year-old man was wounded in the incident is expected to survive.

Police say the responding officers found the three men lying on the street and in a courtyard with gunshot wounds.

No other details were immediately available.

All right, let's see, no other details available, huh? How about we just take a guess.

1.The shooter was a legitimate gun owner frustrated about the draconian gun laws in his home state and these three young men just looked at him wrong.

2. It was a drug deal gone bad.  The guns involved all came from a gun show in Nevada, sold by a legitimate gun owner to these California gangsters.

3. It was self-defense. The shooter was one of those open-carry protesters with an unloaded gun on his belt.  After taking the magazine from his pocket, loading and racking the gun, shooting the three attackers, he began to wonder if he'd get in trouble by sticking around.  He decided to take off.

I can't think of any other possibilities, can you.

Please leave a comment.

The Solution for Space Junk

via Wired Science. The problem is there's too much space junk. What's the solution, shoot it down of course.

NASA scientists have suggested shooting space junk with lasers before. But earlier plans relied on military-class lasers that would either destroy an object altogether, or vaporize part of its surface and create little plasma plumes that would rocket the piece of litter away. Those lasers would be prohibitively expensive, the team says, not to mention make other space-faring nations nervous about what exactly that military-grade laser is pointing at.

The laser to be used in the new system is the kind used for welding and cutting in car factories and other industrial processes. They’re commercially available for about $0.8 million. The rest of the system could cost between a few and a few tens of millions of dollars, depending on whether the researchers build it from scratch or modify an existing telescope, perhaps a telescope at the Air Force Maui Optical Station in Hawaii or at Mt. Stromlo in Australia.

Now, this story go me to thinkin'. The pro-gun folks are always goin' on about their right to own guns. According to them, this right is linked to the natural human right of life and self-defense of that life. You need the right tool to do all this self-defending.

Well, I suggest the first type of laser. The one they're going to use on the space junk is a bit too wimpy for our purposes. After all, we're talking about defending our very lives, right? Nothing short of the"military-class lasers that would either destroy an object altogether, or vaporize part of its surface and create little plasma plumes that would rocket the piece of litter away," will do.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Jon Meacham on the Assault Weapons Ban

via The Huffington Post.

This is the type of gun that the shooter in Arizona is charged with using — a Glock 9 mm with an expanded clip that holds 33 rounds. What on earth could such a thing be good for except for rapidly ending as many human lives in as short a space of time as possible?

Congress banned such clips in 1994 under President Clinton; in 2004, under the second President Bush, they were allowed back on the legal U.S. market. So were other assault weapons banned for the previous decade. Of course the alleged murderer in Tucson was by all accounts mentally ill and susceptible to substance abuse. Could he have put his hands on this kind of Glock and this kind of clip illegally? Sure he could have. But he didn’t have to.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Super DGU Instructions

Robert Farago posted this wonderful video which clearly teaches how to accomplish one of those super DGUs, the ones in which you take the gun from the bad guy and use it on him.  These probably only happen about a million times a year.  We should ask John Lott the expert.

Home Protection

Dramatic DGU

The Denver Post reports on an extremely dramatic DGU.

A man living near the University of Denver wrestled a gun from one of three would-be robbers Tuesday night and shot him dead.

Maybe this could be a higher class of DGU, the ones where the victim is unarmed and shoots the bad guy with the bad guy's own gun. I doubt if there'd be more than a million of those a year, though. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

The Case of Cory Maye

As PhuckPolitics said when he sent me the link, you might find this one interesting even though it's old.

Indeed it is interesting because it touches on some of our favorite discussions. Cory Maye was in his Mississippi home at night with his baby daughter when the police barged into the place. In a desperate attempt at self-defense, he shot and killed the first one through the door. He claims he thought they were home invaders, the police say they announced themselves clearly. Cory was convicted and sentenced to death. Later the sentence was changed to Life, and now a new trial is in the offing.

Wikipedia describes the ramifications of the case like this.

His case attracted little attention until late 2005, when Reason magazine senior editor and police misconduct researcher Radley Balko brought it to light on his blog "The Agitator." Maye's supporters say his conviction and sentence raise issues about the right to self-defense, police conduct in the War on Drugs, and racial and social inequities in Mississippi. They have also raised questions about whether he has received competent legal representation.

What's your opinion? Is this a case which the left and the right can agree upon? The lefty anti-capital-punishment and civil rights crowd and the righty stand-your-ground self-defense folks can come together at last on this one, don't you think?

The Castle Doctrine in the U.K.

Thanks to FishyJay we have the following report from Sky news Online.

The Tories want to give people who kill burglars while defending their home more protection from prosecution, according to the shadow home secretary.

You don't suppose those crazy Tories are talking about getting away with murder like they do so easily in America? It seems to me that even in the United Kingdom they understand what constitutes "lethal threat," or am I wrong?

Laci provided a link to another article from the Guardian. Here's Laci's post on it.

Talk of the Englishmen defending his castle provokes such a rush of blood to the Conservative head that judgment disappears. Last week Munir Hussain was sent to prison for inflicting violent vengeance on a particularly vicious burglar, and now Chris Grayling has said he wants to rip up the reasonable force test that restricts self-defence. The shadow home secretary's proposal is a populist perennial, but one that never quite blooms, as it makes no sense.

What is so difficult about differentiating between justice and vengeance? I never understood it, but I believe "that's what's the deal we're dealin' in."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.