Why we have the 2nd Amendment

[thedrifter]

IT WILL SOON BE IN AMERICA! <br />
<br />
By Robert A. Waters - <br />
<br />
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. <br />
Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers....

[firstsgtmike]

Originally, I considered this an update to the above posted article.

However, the above article referred to a "life sentence" and this update calls it a Five Year sentence.




IN DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE

British farmer Tony Martin is a political prisoner. He’s currently serving a five-year sentence for shooting a burglar, and now he’s been denied parole on the ground that he might be a danger to future burglars who break into his home:

Pushpinder Saini, for the parole board, argued that it had not acted irrationally and burglars were entitled to protection from violent homeowners and were not to be treated as “fair game”.

Actually, I think that shooting burglars — at least where, as in Martin’s case, a reasonable person would fear for his safety — is a good thing. In societies where people are encouraged to defend themselves, crime goes down. In societies where self-defense is discouraged, crime goes up. That has certainly been the experience in Britain. As Joyce Malcolm notes in her recent book Guns and Violence: The English Experience, (Harvard University Press, 2002), British crime rates fell steadily from the 14th century until the mid-20th century. Then British authorities began restricting people’s ability to defend themselves — previously regarded as a natural right — and confiscating guns. British crime rates have climbed steadily ever since, and are now, in many categories, higher than those in the United States.

So why is Martin a political prisoner? Because self-defense is a threat to the political notion that the state enjoys a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If your goal is a populace that is dependent on the government, then keeping it dependent on the authorities for even the most basic of necessities, personal safety, is an important step toward that goal. And people like Tony Martin are a threat to that program. That’s why people who favor an overweening government, whether in other countries or this one, invariably oppose the right to self-defense. And it’s why people who favor freedom should be appalled at the Tony Martin case.

So why hasn’t Amnesty International weighed in?

[Yucca-Man]

Originally posted by firstsgtmike
Pushpinder Saini, for the parole board, argued that it had not acted irrationally and burglars were entitled to protection from violent homeowners and were not to be treated as “fair game”.

Too bad; they are obviously willing to view the homeowner as "fair game"


In societies where people are encouraged to defend themselves, crime goes down. In societies where self-defense is discouraged, crime goes up.

Britain now has one of the highest per-capita uses of video monitoring in the world. What good does that do the average citizen who is mugged or carjacked? If they survive the attack they will be able to see it on video if the case makes it to trial. Of course they may have permanent injuries from said attack but that's apparently not a concern of the government, which seems to be doing all it can to reduce the number of Bobbies on the streets.


So why hasn’t Amnesty International weighed in?

So-called 'simple' political reasons I'm sure...

[mrbsox]

"WE THE PEOPLE..."

... the Constitution starts out;

BIG and BOLD, because it's supposed to be about "THE PEOPLE". The common man, and woman, that are what make America what it is. Law abiding citizens, that reap the rewards of what they have sown, in a FREE Country.

".. the rights of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Since I travel a lot, I've reviewed most of the gun laws in various States. Anywhere from 'your an outof towner' if you DON'T carry, to you cannot even POSSES a firearm in public. One State does allow you to OWN a shotgun, but it MUST remain in your home... DISASSEMBLED. :(

I WILL defend myself, and my family.
"Better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six".

Now, a question or 2 for one of you 'legal eagles'.

If I am in your State, where I cannot LEGALLY carry a weapon, due to State law, does that mean that the State assumes responsibility for my well being, since I cannot defend myself or my family?

If the Constitution allows for 'keeping and bearing arms', can violating a STATE LAW, be a FELONY?


Just asking, and venting !!

Terry

[Devildogg4ever]

I'm glad that others have been noticing the same as I! I also have a feeling some of us are noticing alot more, too! People need to keep alert and let everyone know.

[leroy8541]

I hate to sound like a recruiter here, but there is a fairly huge group that is all for our 2nd amendment rights. The NRA. I have been a loyal member of this Association for several years now, the dues are 25 dollars a year, in my mind money well spent to help protect our constitutional rights. We cannot fight this battle one by one the "other side" doesn't. we have over six thousand members if we were all members of the NRA that would give fire arm owners in this country a BIG voice in Washington.

[Rover]

For those not aware of the background, may I suggest a visit to this link.

http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org

Rover

[Barrio_rat]

Originally posted by mrbsox
I WILL defend myself, and my family.
"Better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six".

Now, a question or 2 for one of you 'legal eagles'.

If I am in your State, where I cannot LEGALLY carry a weapon, due to State law, does that mean that the State assumes responsibility for my well being, since I cannot defend myself or my family?

If the Constitution allows for 'keeping and bearing arms', can violating a STATE LAW, be a FELONY?

Just asking, and venting !!

Terry

Some good questions there. It's a wonder why the NRA and/or other groups/individuals have not challenged some of these laws. I believe (from the readings I've done) that this is an area that could backfire on the gun owners. The Supreme Court has already stated that the states area able to impose "reasonable" control of firearms over their citizens. Some states have gotten carried away with this as well as a few cities. It's hard for me to understand how where I live now I am in law enforcement yet, in the state of California I'd be a criminal - based on the type and amount of weapons I own. So, if this were to go to the Supreme Court and IF the Supreme Court followed the Constitution of the United States, all states, counties and cities would have to change their laws or do away with some entirely. BUT, if the Supreme Court were to side with the states, many other states may go gun grabbing and we'd all be in a world of hurt. That's a gamble that many are not willing to risk. Until this issue does go before the Supreme Court, the Fed is unable to "impose" any laws or counter any current laws of the states, counties or cities.

Here in Oregon, we have contradicting laws. One of the biggest is on assault. On one hand, you have the right to defend yourself. On the other, as soon as you "harm" another person (eg they fall to the ground or worse) you have committed assault and could face up to 5 or 7 years in prison. I actually know a few who are in for just this!

In Multnoma County (Portland) it is illegal to posses or transport a firearm that is fully assembled - other than a legally concealed firearm. Yet the Oregon State Constitution provides that all citizens may legal carry an open weapon (sidearm or long gun). If you do this in any major city, you WILL be detained by police.

Most of these "anti-gun" laws only affect the law abiding and have little effect on crime or the criminal - other than crime goes up and the criminal is more free to commit crimes.