"On this morning's edition of Fareed Zakaria GPS, the host reported that the U.S. accounts for 5% of the world's population and 50% of the world's privately owned firearms -- now that makes me proud to be an American. For those who are ashamed of Liberty but don't have the wherewithal to relocate to another country, I offer this graphic. (Instructions included at no extra charge.)" (via Facebook)
[Massad Ayoob, noted firearms instructor and prolific author, posted this yesterday on his Backwoods Home Magazine blog, "Massad Ayoob on Guns." The hyperlinks are mine.]
And it happens again...
Shortly after the clock ticks into the early morning hours of July 20 during a midnight movie premier at a theater in Aurora, Colorado, a mass murderer opens fire. A dozen or more dead, dozens more wounded, and practically by the time responding officers arrive the anti-gunners are already at their keyboards choreographing their traditional dance in the blood of innocent victims. One, CNN's resident Pommie priss -- who has already long since proven himself totally clueless as to the real-world dynamics of violence -- twitters that guns should be 100,000 times harder to access.
Maybe jobs as public-opinion-forming talking heads should be 100,000 times harder to get, as well. By the way, the "Pommie" reference is nothing against the British in general. The pragmatic Brits I know are aware that they have living countrymen who remember when England begged American gun owners to ship them hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns for their civilians to use as last ditch weapons against the expected Nazi land invasion. It was the Brits themselves who coined POME (Prisoner Of Mother England) to define their brothers and sisters who evinced the mentality we see in the commentator in question.
Overlooked by most is a point discovered by famed Constitutional lawyer Don Kates: the theater in question forbade firearms inside. They themselves made it impossible for even one good person in the theater to draw a lawfully-carried handgun and put a bullet through the monster's brain, to stop the horror and shortstop the tragedy.
Once again, we see that "gun free zones" are hunting preserves for psychopaths who prey on humans.
[Amen, Mas -- amen.]
[This was posted by a Facebook friend last night. It echoes "Here's your sign," which appeared on KintlaLake Blog almost a year ago.]
I'm sorry to be posting this so soon after the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado -- please know that my heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones -- but I'm angry.
I'm angry because, according to news reports, the movie theater where 12 people were murdered and another 59 wounded had a "No Guns Allowed" policy. It may well have posted signs like this one.
This sign kills.
Make no mistake -- even if one or more moviegoers had been lawfully carrying firearms in that theater this morning, there's no guarantee that they could've stopped the shooter or reduced the number of casualties. But we do know two things for sure.
First of all, permitting lawful carry just might've given those theater patrons a fighting chance. More important, signs like this -- and the policies they represent -- advertise to the world that the facility on which they're posted is full of unarmed people, potential victims, fish in a barrel.
It makes no sense.
Today's massacre was an act of evil, carried out by a madman. Everyone knows that madmen are shadows and evil is a fact of life, and yet some among us still suggest that we can prevent such violence by restricting or outright banning some or all firearms -- leaving innocents outgunned at best, disarmed at worst.
That's the equivalent of posting this sign on our houses and on our cars, tattooing it on our foreheads. And it makes no sense.
Madmen and criminal predators always -- and I mean always -- will find a way to get 'hold of the tools of their trade, and incidents like the one in Colorado this morning demonstrate that they sure as hell don’t obey laws and policies, much less signs. Disarming law-abiding citizens by statute, then, can have only one result.
Innocent people will die. When will we learn that?
I see signs like this on businesses every day. Uncomfortable as I am to be entering an "unarmed victims zone," sometimes I patronize the establishment anyway, rationalizing my choice in one way or another.
Not any more. It makes no sense.
"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure -- and in some cases I have -- that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."
(Lt. Col. John Dean "Jeff" Cooper)
"We are steadily asked about the age at which to teach young people to shoot. The answer to this obviously depends upon the particular individual; not only his physical maturity but his desire.
"Apart from these considerations, however, I think it important to understand that it is the duty of the father to teach the son to shoot.
"Before the young man leaves home, there are certain things he should know and certain skills he should acquire, apart from any state-sponsored activity. Certainly the youngster should be taught to swim, strongly and safely, at distance. And young people of either sex should be taught to drive a motor vehicle, and if at all possible, how to fly a light airplane. I believe a youngster should be taught the rudiments of hand-to-hand combat, unarmed, together with basic survival skills.
"The list is long, but it is a parent's duty to make sure that the child does not go forth into the world helpless in the face of its perils.
"Shooting, of course, is our business, and shooting should not be left up to the state."
(Lt. Col. John Dean "Jeff" Cooper)
My fascination with vintage ads, especially those promoting firearms and outdoors gear, continues. I'm especially drawn to depictions of the Winchester Model 67, of course, like the 1956 ad that I posted on Friday, and to the Winchester Junior Rifle Corps.
First up this morning is "Add a Colt to Your Motoring Equipment," clipped from a 1922 issue of Life magazine.
In the early days of the automobile Americans were learning that their new-found mobility, however rudimentary by today's standards, quickly could transport them "beyond the reach of help." What Colt called "the growing menace of auto bandits and thieves" was a relatively fresh concern for the motoring masses.
The other ad I'll share today, "Don't envy the fellows who own rifles," comes from a 1918 issue of Arms and the Man, forerunner of the National Rifle Association's American Rifleman magazine.
Even though the readership of Arms and the Man was predominantly adult males, clearly Winchester's aspirational pitch also drew a bead on young boys. This line spoke to both audiences:
"Every boy wants to own a rifle, and every boy who has the right stuff in him should have one."
What American boy, after all, doesn't believe that he has "the right stuff"? And what self-respecting father would admit that he's raising a boy who lacks it?
The two-pronged approach is reminiscent, it seems to me, of another Winchester ad that I posted here last year.
Naturally, the ad includes the W.J.R.C. spiel. It's interesting to note that the program was taken over by the NRA in 1926.
If the name "Charles L. Worley" doesn't ring a bell, maybe you've seen his work, a portion of which went viral on YouTube recently. Worley is pastor of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina, and on May 13th this is what he preached to his mindless flock:
"I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. Build a great big large fence -- 50 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out. And you know what, in a few years, they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce!"
To be sure, that kind of garbage spews from Christian pulpits each and every Sunday all across this country. It's not only bigoted and antithetical to Liberty, in Worley's case it's downright idiotic.
"...In a few years, they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce!"
Think about it. Worley sure didn't.
Problem is, stupid shit often sticks. Worley's hateful words, while they probably won't result in internment camps for gays, have a large and enthusiastic audience. They will have an effect -- count on that.
I mean, why do you think New York City is the way it is?
Now here's another name for you: "John R. Thompson" -- restaurant baron (whites only, please) and leader of a 1920s crusade to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
In 1921, Thompson took out ads in newspapers nationwide -- one of which got the attention of Horace Kephart -- issuing this challenge:
"I will pay $1,000 to anyone who will give one good reason why the revolver manufacturing industry should be allowed to exist in America and enjoy the facilities of the mails."
His rationale?
"The revolver always has been and still is a menace to any community. It merely is a weapon for the thug, the holdup man and the murderer. It is impossible to turn to any useful purpose, as one uses the rifle or shotgun. Where would our holdup man, doing such a thriving business in Chicago today, be, if he could not get hold of a revolver? He couldn't very well go round packing a shotgun or a rifle, and if he carried only a piece of lead pipe or club the victim would at least have a fighting chance."
Obviously -- to me, anyway, and probably to you -- Thompson's theory of "disarmament" is arrogant and completely unhitched from reality. It's strikingly similar to Worley's gay-camps-with-electric-fences proposal in its utter silliness.
We shouldn't dismiss Thompson, though, merely because his campaign is long-dead and his ideas were inarguably dumb -- exactly the same pitch is being hurled by today's gun-control crowd.
Stupidity is always a threat to Liberty and, thanks to citizens who don't take time to think, it never goes out of style.
[Thompson ad from the June 9, 1921 Concordia Sentinel (Louisiana).]
While casting about the 'Web over the last 20 years, I've noticed that finding what I'm looking for doesn't stop me -- often it only spurs me to search for something else. That's what happened last week, when I unearthed that January-February 2009 issue of Rifle magazine.
Thus encouraged, I began stalking an even older rag that's eluded me.
I posted "Back fifty-two to 'Fifty-nine" about 18 months ago, talking about the preparedness mindset and providing links to pdf versions of two issues of Guns magazine from 1959.
I also linked to a fascinating article from a 1958 issue of Guns. At the time I couldn't offer a pdf of the piece.
Now I can -- click here to download the August 1958 issue of Guns magazine. The article ".22's for Survival?" begins on pages 34 and 35, continuing on page 58. Even though 54 years have passed since its publication, I believe it's as useful now as it was provocative then.
I've collected hundreds of military manuals, in pdf form, over the last several years. It often strikes me how changes in mission and culture, beyond tactics and technology, have shaped their messages.
For example, the 2003 edition of The Soldier's Guide begins:
The Soldier is the ultimate guardian of America's freedom. In over 120 countries around the world, Soldiers like you are protecting our Nation's freedom and working to provide a better life for oppressed or impoverished peoples. It is no accident our Army succeeds everywhere we are called to serve -- the loyalty and selfless service of the American Soldier guarantee it.
Today our Army is fighting directly for the American people. This global war on terrorism is about our future. It's about ensuring our children and grandchildren enjoy the same liberties we cherish. While difficult tasks remain, victory is certain. The efforts and sacrifices of the American Soldier will assure it.
Compare that to the opening paragraph of the 1941 edition of the Soldier's Handbook:
You are now a member of the Army of the United States. That Army is made up of free citizens chosen from among a free people. The American people of their own will, and through the men they have elected to represent them in Congress, have determined that the free institutions of this country will continue to exist. They have declared that, if necessary, we will defend our right to live in our own American way and continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges which are granted to the citizens of no other nation. It is upon you, and the many thousands of your comrades now in the military service, that our country has placed its confident faith that this defense will succeed should it ever be challenged.
Notice that the more current version of the basic field manual alludes to (so-called) "nation building" and carries an unmistakably political tone. Sixty years earlier, it was all about defending the homeland.
This independent citizen-patriot, for one, favors the 1941 version.
Savage Arms Company produced more than 200,000 copies of the diminutive Savage Automatic Pistol -- a.k.a. Model 1907 -- between 1908 and 1920. As I said in yesterday's post, the gun is remembered more for over-the-top advertising than for defensive prowess.
Consider this 1914 pitch, pulled from The Saturday Evening Post.
Again, let's take a closer look at the hyperbolic, chauvinistic copy:
Is Your Wife Helpless or Dangerous --
in these times when more idlers
make more burglars and brutes?
These times make more idlers. More idlers mean more Burglars and Brutes. Burglars and Brutes break your house; shock your wife into permanent hysteria and mark your children with a horrible fear for life.
A ten shot, easy-to-aim Savage Automatic converts your helpless wife into a dangerous defender of her children -- more dangerous to face than a mother grizzly bear.
Fathers, it is a serious duty in these times to arm your home by day and by night with a Savage Automatic -- the one arm which every Brute and Burglar fears. They fear its 10 lightning shots, 2 to 4 more than others; they fear the novice's power to aim it as easy as pointing your finger. Therefore take pains that you get the Savage -- the one the thugs fear.
As harmless as a cat around the house, because it is the only automatic that tells by glance or touch whether loaded or empty.
Take home a Savage today. Or at least send for free booklet, "If You Hear a Burglar," written by a famous detective.
Allow me to state the obvious -- a quick flip through any modern-day gun magazine reveals that manufacturers' approach to women has changed dramatically over the last 98 years. Ads now speak directly to women, acknowledging their role as gun owners and empowered (not "helpless") defenders of life and Castle. That's a good thing.
Knowing Mrs. KintlaLake as I do, it's also a sure thing.
Back in the early 1900s, venerable Savage Arms produced a small-frame semi-automatic pistol chambered in .32. The marketing angle was an appeal to women in need of protection but afraid of firearms.
Most of the ads for this gun were either hyperbolic or chauvinist -- and usually both -- but this one takes the prize for lousy advice.
Here's a taste of the copy:
Shoot the First Shots Out of the Window!
That is the very best thing to do when you find a burglar in the house, says Wm. P. Sheridan, famous detective, in the Woman's World Magazine. Arouse the whole neighborhood with shots! These first two or three shots will cause neighbors to jump to the 'phone and call the police.
Save the rest of your shots in case the burglar attacks you.
Yes, you read that right -- exactly 100 years ago, encouraging an inexperienced shooter facing an intruder to fire a few rounds out the window was considered a good idea. I know we're talking about deadly force and home defense here, but honestly, I can't help laughing.
Notice that the ad included an offer of even more such wisdom. By mail, for six cents, a reader could get a copy of The Tenderfoot's Turn (written, incidentally, by one Bat Masterson). Can you imagine?
"Could you answer a call for help, meet a criminal, handle him without danger to yourself? Unarmed, you'd be helpless. Armed, you could uphold law and order."
(From a 1922 issue of The Outlook magazine -- and no, buying a gun to "uphold law and order" isn't particularly sound advice.)
"The whole truth of this preparedness idea just hit me. For years I have carried insurance on my life, health, house and household goods. I have tucked away a comfortable nest egg in the bank to forestall a rainy day and financial reverses. And all this while I have kidded myself into thinking that this was all the protection that any husband and father could throw around his family.
"Defending the lives of my loved ones against the felonious attacks of prowling burglars -- this never occurred to me.
"There isn't a streak of yellow in me. I've never been called a coward in all my life. I just didn't give it a thought. I've been so busy with -- "
(From a 1917 issue of The Saturday Evening Post. Now, as then, we can be sure that most Americans won't have this conversation with themselves and will not be prepared.)
Among the most popular posts here on KintlaLake Blog is "Castle Doctrine, with a Norwegian accent." It features a 1917 ad for Iver Johnson's Arms & Cycle Works, noting its unapologetic expression of a citizen's right to defend home and family.
Here's another, clipped from a 1922 issue of Hearst's International:
The ad's bold headline -- "Self-preservation is the first law" -- sets the table for the copy that follows:
"Our forefathers who framed the Constitution of the United States recognized the right of citizens to protect their persons and property.
"And so the second amendment was inserted, which says, '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
If Iver Johnson or his sons were around today, I'd like to think that they'd be advocating for our Second Amendment rights -- with or without a commercial interest, political correctness be damned.
Today I'm going to return briefly to the words of Frédéric Bastiat -- specifically, to the opening paragraphs of his 1850 essay, The Law:
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production -- in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
Feel free to swap "nature" for "God" and "Creator," should you find Bastiat's deism bothersome -- it doesn't alter the meaning one bit.
Bastiat's fundamental premise (and indeed, the American ideal he so admired) is that individuals are superior to the governments they establish. We create law to collect and to protect, to organize and to represent -- not to replace and not to abdicate.
Life, liberty and property aren't granted to us by the governments we form and the laws we enact. The individual precedes and supersedes the collective construct.
Anything short of that ideal is "legal plunder, organized injustice."
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." (Thomas Jefferson, 1787)
"Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." (Abraham Lincoln, 1858)
"The most important thing in this world is liberty. More important than food or clothes -- more important than gold or houses or lands -- more important than art or science -- more important than all religions, is the liberty of man." (Robert Green Ingersoll, 1887)
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (Thomas Jefferson, 1791)
"The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong." (attributed to Thomas Paine, 1775)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." (Noah Webster, 1787)
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." (Adolf Hitler, 1942)
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." (Hubert Humphrey, 1960)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Benjamin Franklin, 1759)
"...I also want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of, that you said earlier. You don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground. And you referenced your homelands of England, where if someone invades your home, an English homeowner, by law, has to retreat.
"...I offer to you that that's anti-human, that that disrespects the gift of life, and it actually encourages recidivist criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground; we're going to retreat.
"...You're in America now. And in America, we have a Second Amendment right. And we value life more than sheep do. And we don't back down. So the stand-your-ground law is common sense. It's logical. And it's the right thing to do."
(Ted Nugent to CNN's Piers Morgan on Wednesday, April 4th, 2012)
When I posted "My take on Sanford" last month, I spoke too soon. In fact, my speculation about what transpired on the night of February 26th may well have been dead wrong.
I should've known better.
New information about the incident comes to light every day -- some of it's factual, some of it's legal posturing and some of it's reflexive rhetoric from the usual suspects.
The matter is in the hands of investigators. Soon it'll be presented to a grand jury and, potentially, to a trial jury. That's where it will be (and should be) decided.
I did get one thing right -- I don't believe I've ever seen such an intense siege on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and on our human right to self-defense. Coverage of the shooting has given little time or credence to that side of the story.
All-star status (and not in a good way) goes to CNN's Piers Morgan. Not only has he followed the easy recipe, he's repeatedly spiked the punch with his British slant:
"My view from the start has been, it seems incomprehensible to me under any form of stand-your-ground law -- or any absurd law as I view it -- that somebody could shoot somebody who turned out to be unarmed and not even being arrested on the night. In Britain where I come from, that would cause a sensation the likes of which our justice system has never seen before."
"As far as British law is concerned, if this had happened in Britain, there would be no stand-your-ground defense and he would have been arrested. I'm more comfortable with the way we do things."
Last night, at least, he solicited the perspective of one Ted Nugent. Here's the complete transcript of their exchange:
MORGAN: The rally to bring justice to Trayvon Martin. The tragedy brings out a lot of emotions and everyone has an opinion on the shooting, including my next guest, Ted Nugent. Everyone knows he never holds back. And I thank him for joining me tonight. Ted, welcome back.
Last time, we were having a fairly jocular debate about all this. But this is a bit too serious for that. You've heard the attorneys on both sides there. What do you make of this case in its entirety?
NUGENT: Well, first of all, thanks for going after this very tragic situation, Piers. And thank you for having me on. But let me clarify one thing, very, very important, that you alluded to earlier in your program, that you believe that the vast majority of Americans want Zimmerman arrested.
Let me tell you what the vast majority of Americans want. We're saying prayers for the Martin family and all those other black youths that are slaughtered every week. Those are the people that we constantly cry out for.
So be very careful what you assume. Those of us that love life and respect life, we don't see any color. But we wonder where the outcry is when every week these youths are slaughtered across the streets of America. So that's the most important statement I want to make right here.
MORGAN: But, I mean, look, there are always, with all these cases, innumerable other cases that can be thrown in as why don't you care as much about that? The reality of this case is that, I believe, it's popped in America as a big cause because of the precise nature of what happened after Trayvon Martin was killed.
That is this particularly extreme version of stand-your-ground. You have to use that phrase, because it is in Florida. It's particularly wide-ranging. And it has allowed a situation where somebody can shoot an unarmed teenager and actually be allowed to go home that night without even being arrested.
That's why I understand people feeling exercised about why he wasn't arrested on the night. Shouldn't he have been? Even for someone like you, that believes in right to bear arms and guns and everything else, shouldn't he have been arrested?
NUGENT: You saw the tape. I saw the tape where he was handcuffed, Piers. That's arrested. He was arrested. He was questioned. The stand-your-ground law does have specific ramifications.
But I also want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of, that you said earlier. You don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground. And you referenced your homelands of England, where if someone invades your home, an English homeowner, by law, has to retreat.
Piers, I offer to you that that's anti-human, that that disrespects the gift of life, and it actually encourages recidivist criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground; we're going to retreat.
Piers, you're in America now. And in America, we have a Second Amendment right. And we value life more than sheep do. And we don't back down. So the stand-your-ground law is common sense. It's logical. And it's the right thing to do.
MORGAN: Right. I mean, American has 270 million guns, by common estimation. Britain, I think, has about two million.
NUGENT: I think more than that.
MORGAN: Well, maybe more than that. OK. The last record said 9,484 homicides involving guns in the last year that was recorded. Britain had 68. I suppose my point is this, is that I don't defend all the laws in Britain. Many of them are ridiculous. I don't defend all the laws in America or attack all the laws. Some, to me, seem ridiculous. Others seem perfectly fair and balanced.
It's a great country with a great legal system in many ways. I don't denigrate America with this. But on the stand-your-ground law, in particular, it seems to me unbelievable that a young, unarmed teenager in America today can actually be shot dead for possession of a bag of Skittles, on his way home to his father's girlfriend's house.
My point was, when they were mocking British law, by the way -- they started this. I said back in Britain, that wouldn't have happened. You couldn't do that without being arrested and almost certainly charged. Now I think many Americans -- let's not say the majority. I don't know the statistics. But many Americans feel uncomfortable that this could happen in modern America and that George Zimmerman would simply be allowed to go home that night when Trayvon Martin goes to a coffin.
NUGENT: Piers, you have expressed that you don't want to try this on television. I also do not want to try this on television. I think we both agree that there's a tragedy that it is being tried and that Zimmerman has been convicted across the media in many instances.
So let's not do that here. So let me propose to you a scenario that I think you can grasp and support. You must be aware, and if not I'll inform you now, how many professional law enforcement heroes are killed every year with their own weapon. I'm not juxtaposing this with the Trayvon and the Zimmerman situation.
But it does happen, where an assailant will start beating a person so badly that those of us that are armed, we have a responsibility to keep that new assault from taking our weapon, because if the assault escalates to that degree -- certainly the fist can go into a deadly situation if they get a hold of the gun bearer's gun.
So we have to be cognizant of that. If it wasn't for backup guns in law enforcement and in civilians hands, oftentimes, that the perpetrator and the person getting beat up is killed with his own gun. So let's not dismiss that reality that is documented over and over again across this country.
MORGAN: But do you believe that a neighborhood watch official acting in that capacity should be armed and using that firearm?
NUGENT: Yes.
MORGAN: OK. Well, Ted, we'll agree to disagree over that. I hope we can do that again in an extended way soon, because your opinions are always very interesting to hear. Thank you for joining me.
NUGENT: Thank you, Piers. My family sends their best and our prayers are with the Martin family.
There's some great stuff in there -- thanks, Ted.
About Morgan's final question -- judging by the pause that followed Nugent's unequivocal answer (plus the look on Morgan's face), it was clear that the host wasn't quite prepared for such an affirmation of Liberty. Go figure, eh?
Welcome to America.
"It's important that people be put in a position where their Second Amendment rights are protected, but that they also don't, as a consequence of the laws, unintendedly [sic] put themselves in harm's way."
"The idea that there's this overwhelming additional security in the ownership and carrying concealed and deadly weapons... I think it's the premise, not the constitutional right, but the premise that it makes people safer is one that I'm not so sure of."
(VP Joe Biden on yesterday's edition of CBS News "Face the Nation")
Against the backdrop of the shooting involving a neighborhood-watch volunteer last month in Sanford, Florida, this subject seems timely.
First, a little background: my wife and I are active in our local crime watch. It's a private effort, separate and distinct from the official community-watch program managed by our county sheriff's department.
Applicants for the sheriff's volunteer program are trained in basic protocol and procedures. If accepted, they're issued identifying clothing (cap, polo shirt and jacket) and patrol in radio-equipped marked cars.
Our group, by contrast, holds regular information-sharing meetings and leaves the rest to residents' interest and discretion. Mrs. KintlaLake and I often cruise the streets near our house and monitor nearby city parks, and we keep tabs on our neighbors.
We're crystal-clear about what we're legally empowered to do: observe and report. We don't pursue and we don't engage.
We have no authority to enforce the law -- we're not cops, nor do we aspire to be. We're simply citizens of this community, taking responsibility for a measure of its security.
Long-time KintlaLake Blog readers will recall that both my wife and I hold CCW permits, and yes, we carry when we're moving through our community to take note of goings-on. Then again, we always exercise our concealed-carry privileges, whenever and wherever possible.
(The sheriff's community-watch volunteers aren't permitted to carry firearms while on-duty, by the way.)
Getting involved in a crime-watch group (or forming one) is a good idea, in my opinion. A few suggestions:
- Know the law -- local, state & federal.
- Don't fly solo -- maintain your independence, but enlist the participation of other members of the community.
- Involve law-enforcement authorities -- communicate, collaborate & cooperate.
- Watch out for eager-beavers, cop-wannabes & vigilantes -- a crime-watch group isn't a posse.
- I repeat: observe and report -- don't pursue & don't engage.
- Avoid divulging too much information about your own family's safety, security & preparedness plans to other members of your group.
Now more than ever, we need to take care of our communities. As long as we're smart about it, we needn't be intimidated by the shit-storm in Sanford.
Y'know, it'd be just fine with me if this image went viral:
Feel free to grab it and pass it along -- Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, whatever. If you want, hell, turn it into a bumper sticker.
And now, with apologies (or not) to songwriters Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne, these lyrics seem appropriate:
Well, I won't back down
No, I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down
Gonna stand my ground
Won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground
And I won't back down
Hey, baby, there ain't no easy way out
Hey, I will stand my ground
And I won't back down
Well, I know what's right
I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I'll stand my ground
And I won't back down
I won't minimize the tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death, nor should you infer that I'm leaping to defend shooter George Zimmerman. But facing elected officials' cowardice and largely one-sided coverage of Sanford, it's time for those of us who responsibly exercise our right to self-defense to make our voices heard.
I'm sorry to be posting this so soon after the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado -- please know that my heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones -- but I'm angry.
I posted "Back fifty-two to 'Fifty-nine" about 18 months ago, talking about the preparedness mindset and providing links to pdf versions of two issues of Guns magazine from 1959.
