This is Why I Carry a Handgun

photo

I teach high school English, a profession commonly thought to number among the most touchy-feely. I love books. And if that weren’t bad enough, I’m a professional, classically trained singer, a first tenor. Yes, the highest male voice. One of a few good–and rare–men, sometimes in tights. I regularly don a tuxedo and sing the works of the masters with a symphony orchestra, and I often get paid for singing. I occasionally wear a Renaissance costume — tights and all — and sing madrigals. I’ve been known to shed a tear at the occasional movie, and even during the many years on the police force in my misspent (relative) youth, people, upon learning my job, would exclaim in surprise: “You don’t look like a cop!” They couldn’t tell me what a cop looked like, but they were pretty sure it wasn’t me . . .

Knowing that background, it’s not hard to understand that people are often surprised to learn that I’m a certified firearm instructor and carry a concealed handgun virtually everywhere. And a spear gun in the shower. OK, so I’m exaggerating a little about the spear gun. Maybe.

This requires explanations, and the occasional trip to the range to introduce a neophyte to the joys and responsibilities of shooting. Those explanations and conversations inspire me to think about why I carry a handgun, and upon occasion, to update and refine those reasons. Occasions like now.

I carry a handgun because:

* I can’t foretell the future. I carry not for the things I can anticipate, but for the things I can’t.

* Evil exists and may confront anyone at any time and any place.

* Self-defense is a God-given, natural, unalienable right.

* There is no gift so precious as God’s gift of life.

* To fail to protect the greatest gift devalues all life.

* My life is worth far more to me, those that love me, and to a just society than the lives of vicious brutes that would take it.

* The lives of the innocent—friend or stranger—are worth far more to me and to a just society than the lives of vicious brutes that would take them.

* Three times in my life I have raised my right hand and sworn a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I have never betrayed those oaths and never will.

* The Constitution is only paper, a statement of principles and intentions. When the will wavers and when some wish to change, ignore or destroy those principles and intentions for light and transient reasons, only the threat and force of arms will suffice to preserve liberty.

* From time to time, politicians forget their place. The carrying and use of arms by law abiding citizens helps them, gently, to remember.

* A handgun is the most convenient, usual and effective means of self-defense.

* By carrying my handgun, I honor the foresight and wisdom of the Founders in writing the Second Amendment.

* Going armed reinforces and upholds the Social Contract.

tj

* I know that Thomas Jefferson was right: 

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

That’s why we have a Second Amendment, not for hunting, not for self-defense, but to allow the common man–if necessary–to resist a tyrannical government and always to deter tyranny.

* It demonstrates—day after day—that I am the master of my government, not its slave; that elected officials work for me.

* I am a free man and no evidence of that fact is more meaningful and convincing than that I own and carry the firearms I prefer.

* It sorely vexes those who would enslave me—all of us—through tyranny, soft or hard.

* It reminds them that in America, there are lines no rational, honest politician dare cross.

* It reminds them that in America, there are lines no irrational, dishonest politician dare cross.

* It reminds them that every iota of power they possess is on temporary loan from me and every other American.

* It reminds us all that the whims of the highest politician may not prevail over the Bill of Rights because our will has not flagged and will not flag.

* It is the very means by which an oppressed citizenry may force despots to respect the Bill of Rights.

* Because politicians harboring tyrannical intentions fear armed citizens like a vampire fears a crucifix, it serves to positively identify those that hide behind spin, teleprompters and clever lies.

* Most politicians care about the welfare and continuing existence of individual citizens only in the abstract. Even honorable politicians can do little more than those who only pretend to care.

* Even in our democracy, tyrants are always present and always waiting their chance.

hhh

* With this in mind, Hubert Humphrey, one of the most famous and orthodox Democrats of the last century was right–and refreshingly honest and non-partisan–when he said: 

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

* Those who willingly and meekly surrender to criminals surrender more than valuables; they surrender their dignity and honor; they surrender civilization itself.

* I am old-fashioned enough to think it my duty to protect those who have less ability than mine to protect themselves.

* I could not live with myself for failing to protect a woman in danger. Call it sexist if you must, but if you’re unarmed and under attack, would you really want to call an unarmed, untrained statist? Would Pajama Boy save you?

Downloads

* I know human nature.  Like the Shadow, I know what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

* I know that many criminals experience pangs of conscience.  I also know that it does not prevent them from being predators, only that it occasionally causes them to feel badly, for a few fleeting seconds, thereafter.

* I know that sociopaths exist, in greater numbers than most imagine, and that they have no conscience.

* I know that some people really like hurting others.  Rarely does one need to engage in psychological navel gazing to understand the actions of predators.  They do it because they want to do it, because they like to do it, and some, because it is an intense sexual thrill.

* I know that such people are everywhere, and are for most, impossible to pick out from the mass of humankind.

* I know that such people can be stopped only by the presence of overwhelming and imminent force: the gun.

* I know that living a virtuous life is no defense against such people.

* I know that having a Progressive political and social philosophy not only is no defense against such people, it encourages, helps, even creates them.

* I know that only bullets will stop some predators. Using reason or empathy on such “people” is like the cries of a wounded bird to a carnivore.

* Politicians sometimes speak of a “war on crime.”  They have no idea.  The streets are the battlefield, and whether we like it or not, we are all the combatants.

* The predators that would carry that battlefield into our homes are usually the most dangerous of all.

* The police have no legal obligation to protect me—or anyone.

* The police simply can’t protect anyone; there are far too few of them and far too many of us.

* When seconds count, the police are always minutes (or in Detroit and many, many other places, an hour) away.

* I accept personal responsibility and live accordingly.

* As an adult, I am solely responsible for my continuing existence.

* As an adult, I am also responsible for the continuing existence of children.

* Accepting personal responsibility encourages me to be continually aware of my surroundings, to be tactically, situationally aware.

* Having situational awareness makes it more likely I won’t ever need to use my handgun.

* My training and experience give me confidence that if I do need it, I will use it effectively and properly, though I will always pray to be fast and accurate.

* It gives me the ability to deter those younger, stronger or more numerous than myself.

* It gives me the ability to defeat those younger, stronger or more numerous than myself if they are too stupid, too drugged, or too predatory to be deterred.

* I know that criminals fear the guns of armed citizens far more than the guns of the police. They should.

* Domestic terrorists and murderers have always been with us.  The victims and survivors of Columbine High School (1999), Virginia Tech (2007), Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012), and the Boston Marathon attack (2013)—and I–have no doubt of this.

* In virtually every school shooting in recent American history, the police played virtually no role in stopping the killers. Armed citizens did.

* We are at war with uniquely deranged, blood-thirsty terrorists determined to slaughter Americans on American soil.

* I have no doubt that Islamist terrorists are waiting for their chance, and on American soil.  I have no doubt others will soon walk over our open borders.

* I frequent the places (schools, theaters, shopping malls, grocery stores and other soft targets) terrorists long to attack.

* I can imagine few feelings worse than being unarmed when and where a terrorist attack takes place.

* Even unarmed, I would have no option but to attack armed terrorists shooting innocents.

* Armed, I would be able to save at least some lives and stop at least some killers.

* I could not bear the thought that I was less prepared than the Boy Scouts—in any situation.

* It is important to me to know that I can make a real difference when it most matters.

* I appreciate well-designed and made devices.

* Firearms are like fire extinguishers.  When one is needed, it’s needed right now, badly, and nothing else will do.

* The discipline of the gun helps to make me a better, more aware and more effective person.

* Thomas Jefferson was also right when, in 1785, he advised his 15 year old nephew and ward:

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind.”

* Shooting and being a part of the “gun culture” is uplifting and simply fun.

* I recognize that I am the weapon; the handgun is simply a tool.

* Everyone that carries a handgun, without incident, every day, makes a stronger legal and political case for fully honoring the intent of the Founders and expanding Second American freedoms.

* The mark of civilization is not what a man or a people are willing to say about it, but what they are willing and able to do to defend it.

* The battle for liberty never ends. I’ll do my part, symbolically, and if necessary, in fact.

* Foremost, I am an American; I am a free man; it is my tradition and heritage.

* As an American, I do it for no reason other than I want to.

comments

  1. avatar AndrewPVD says:

    From Article…

    TO LISTICLE MAN!!

    HIS POWER KNOWS NO BOUNDS.

  2. avatar Mueller says:

    can i get an Amen!?!

    1. avatar Bob72 says:

      Amen!!!!

      1. avatar trapper2013 says:

        I’m with you AMEN!

  3. avatar Don Davis says:

    Outstanding !!! No need to say anything else.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    Slow clap.

  5. avatar Robert Keeton says:

    Bravo! Brava! Bravisima!

  6. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    HS English…hmm was expecting Hemingway Thompson or F. Scott Fitz. Instead got every gun guy cliche. Where is the internal dialog? The sexual tension? The depressing realization of life failure ?

  7. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    I like it, except this part:
    “Even in our democracy,”

    The US is not a democracy, thank God. We have a constitution to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      Absolutely correct. A democracy is similar in concept to our republic in many ways, but that does not make the terms interchangeable. The differences are the key, and make the terms irreconcilably different.
      Other than that, a very nice work.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Eh…true. We’re not a direct democracy (thank heaven for that).

        But democracy is sufficient as a shorthand term; we vote for our representatives at all levels of government, and that democratic bedrock distinguishes our republic from governments that don’t require the continually renewed consent of their citizens.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          No, it absolutely is not. Only those with small minds refuse to look at the difference. You are saying that it would be OK to call a man a woman, since the differences are minor. Maybe that works for you…

          Our founding fathers went out of their way to avoid a democracy, and people like you ignore that and facilitate creating exactly what they were afraid of, a democracy.

      2. avatar jack in the Crack says:

        I always find it interesting when politicians call our constitutional republic a “democracy”.

        Just makes them look stupid or dishonest (like they are trying to brainwash the “vunnables”).
        _______________

        Great article by the way.

  8. avatar Kris says:

    Slow clap…

    Everyone begin to stand, one by one…

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      ^^^…this

  9. avatar Paul on Harsens Island says:

    Best written piece since I’ve started reading this site.

    1. avatar Tyler Kee says:

      To be fair, an English teacher wrote it vs. the rest of us with our thumbs hooked in our belt loops rocking back and forth on our heels.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Did they teach English in school back in our day?

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        The usage of grammar and puncturing was impeccable while the content was inspiring.

        1. avatar cmeat says:

          careless, now! too much puncturing (puncturation?) could blow a spear sized hole in the viewpoint.

  10. avatar Robert W. says:

    Speargun? Maybe.

    Harpoon….

  11. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    I carry a firearm every day.

    I still want a lightsaber.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “They promised us Jet-Packs…They gave us Facebook.”

  12. avatar RDSmith says:

    Bookmarking this to show other hoplophobes when the time arises.

  13. avatar Joe A says:

    is somebody cutting onions?

    http://i.imgur.com/csxjxBi.gif

  14. avatar MothaLova says:

    Hmmm, are you SURE you’re an English-teaching, first-tenor-caterwauling, Renaissance-dressing, symphony-listening sort of fella?

    If so, I demand proof.

    Please write a follow-up piece including at least one reference to each of the following:

    1. Samuel Johnson’s essays
    2. Gluck’s Alceste
    3. Monteverdi’s madrigals
    3. Brahms’s double concerto

    Thank you in advance.

    1. avatar Al Booth says:

      MothaLova:

      It is all true – I worked with Mike as a rookie in my first police department. He and I were good friends during that time. He is all that and more, with all the contradictions.

      Mike:

      Excellent piece.

      1. avatar MothaLova says:

        Oh, I don’t doubt it.

        But I still want a “guns and belles lettres” follow-up piece!

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Maybe we could arrange extra credit, hmmmh?

      2. avatar Pg says:

        Ooh ooh, and one including John Donne! His theological stuff, not “The Flea.” Everyone always does “The Flea!”

      3. Dear Al:

        Bless your heart, and thanks! Good to hear from you.

    2. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

      All he has to do is give a performance of “we saw your boobs”.

    3. Dear MothaLova:

      I promised my wife long ago that I wouldn’t engage in English teacherisms outside the classroom. My finest grad school professor once told me that the fastest way to end any conversation was to say: “You know, what you just said has fascinating grammatical implications…” He was absolutely right.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    I carry because it pisses off Dirk Diggler’s girlfriend and her midget.

  16. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    As I have said here many times. I carry a gun because when seconds count police are minutes away.

  17. avatar Sam says:

    Best article I’ve read on this website in a long time. Sharing this for sure.

  18. avatar SteveInCO says:

    You had me at “I can’t foretell the future. I carry not for the things I can anticipate, but for the things I can’t.”

    Actually you had me persuaded before you listed so much as one thing. But it’s important to say it in as many different ways as possible, because you never know which one might finally give someone who is anti- their “Ah ha!” moment and break through their conditioning.

  19. avatar TRP says:

    I am making a copy of this to plaster on my wall. Fine piece…

  20. avatar Paladin says:

    An English teacher should know the difference between principles and principals.

    …Just saying.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Especially if his school’s principal has principles. Of course if there are multiple principals there, that only applies to the principle one.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        I hope you meant “,,, principal one.” 😀

        1. avatar Paladin says:

          The principled principal principal?

    2. Dear Paladin:

      Arrggh! As any writer will tell you, finding your own errors while proofreading is a daunting task indeed. This is particularly true when writing for the Internet. I’m amazed I do as well as I do. Thanks for the catch. I noticed it too the first time I read it on the site. I’ll get it repaired.

      1. avatar Paladin says:

        No sweat, I’ve made my own fair share of grammatical errors.

  21. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Fantastic

  22. avatar JasonM says:

    * We are at war with uniquely deranged, blood-thirsty terrorists determined to slaughter Americans on American soil.

    * I have no doubt that Islamist terrorists are waiting for their chance, and on American soil. I have no doubt others will soon walk over our open borders.

    Where are these boogeymen? The government has been scaring us with the story that “they” plan to come over here and slaughter every American, since the ’80s (I remember seeing a movie-of-the-week propaganda piece back in the mid ’80s about muslim terrorists). But there have only been a few attacks, and all of those as a direct response to greater acts of violence committed by the US government, its allies, or puppet dictators.

    We gun owners like to put the number of gun deaths and sensationalized media coverage of high profile shootings in proper context. And we like to point out that one gun owner going nuts and killing a dozen people implies nothing about the other gun owners.

    Why not apply that same consideration to muslims? The number of Americans killed by muslim terrorists in all terrorist attacks is smaller than the number of Americans killed by gang warfare every year. 19 deranged killers from Saudi Arabia (a brutal dictatorship that would have been overthrown decades ago, without US government support) do not represent the billion plus muslims around the world. The vast majority of them just want to live in peace. And those attacks are anomalies, not the rule, just like school shootings. But they do scare the hell out of the sheeple, just like school shootings. And they make great propaganda events to try to motivate public policy, just like school shootings. But you are correct in that they, just like any other potential, but unlikely, act of violence, are a good reason to be armed.

    Currently, even among most of the extremists, the only desire is to remove western influence over their political and economic systems. Few if any of them have any desire to come over here and kill Americans. When they were using the same strategies to resist Soviet influence, back in the ’80s, they were “freedom fighters” supported by the CIA, now that they’re resisting the US government, they’re “terrorists”.

    Every “plot” thwarted by the federal government over the last decade or more has been an entrapment scheme, where a paid informant prods impressionable, young muslims to attack a target, then provides an FBI built bomb to do so.
    And if some of the accusations against Eric Holder are true, the FBI has been doing that since Oklahoma City…which is possibly why they now supply the bombs, so they know nothing will explode.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Take your meds and you’ll stop frothing at the mouth shortly.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        The ad hominem attack. The perfect choice when you can’t attack the subject.
        Elliot Fineman would be impressed.

    2. avatar Jake in AL says:

      Where are these boogeymen?
      The Middle east, mostly.
      The government has been scaring us with the story that “they” plan to come over here and slaughter every American, since the ’80s (I remember seeing a movie-of-the-week propaganda piece back in the mid ’80s about muslim terrorists).
      They’ve been killing Americans since the 1980’s, remember the Beirut barracks bombing?
      But there have only been a few attacks, and all of those as a direct response to greater acts of violence committed by the US government, its allies, or puppet dictators.
      I can’t disprove a negative; I’ll invite you to prove your premise though.
      We gun owners like to put the number of gun deaths and sensationalized media coverage of high profile shootings in proper context. And we like to point out that one gun owner going nuts and killing a dozen people implies nothing about the other gun owners.
      It doesn’t.
      Why not apply that same consideration to muslims?
      Most of us do.
      The number of Americans killed by muslim terrorists in all terrorist attacks is smaller than the number of Americans killed by gang warfare every year.
      You compared gang-related deaths, (involving gang-members, who embraced the danger inherent in their lifestyle) to the deaths of office workers? Really?
      19 deranged killers from Saudi Arabia (a brutal dictatorship that would have been overthrown decades ago, without US government support) do not represent the billion plus muslims around the world. The vast majority of them just want to live in peace. And those attacks are anomalies, not the rule, just like school shootings.
      Correct, not all Muslims are terrorists; however, most terrorists are Muslims.
      But they do scare the hell out of the sheeple, just like school shootings. And they make great propaganda events to try to motivate public policy, just like school shootings. But you are correct in that they, just like any other potential, but unlikely, act of violence, are a good reason to be armed.
      Yes, yes and yes.
      Currently, even among most of the extremists, the only desire is to remove western influence over their political and economic systems.
      False, among most Muslim extremists, their goal is to establish an Islamic Caliphate and take over the world.
      Few if any of them have any desire to come over here and kill Americans. When they were using the same strategies to resist Soviet influence, back in the ’80s, they were “freedom fighters” supported by the CIA, now that they’re resisting the US government, they’re “terrorists”.
      Correct, freedom fighters fight soldiers, terrorists kill civilians. See the difference there?
      Every “plot” thwarted by the federal government over the last decade or more has been an entrapment scheme, where a paid informant prods impressionable, young muslims to attack a target, then provides an FBI built bomb to do so.
      Damn right, and if the FBI hadn’t provided some BS bomb, the basterds would have found a way to do it themselves. Remember that little thing in Boston? The DC sniper?
      And if some of the accusations against Eric Holder are true, the FBI has been doing that since Oklahoma City…which is possibly why they now supply the bombs, so they know nothing will explode.
      If all the accusations against Eric Holder were true, he’d have horns.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        You mean he doesn’t?

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think you missed one. I would like to see some references as to how the King of Saudi would have been overthrown long ago without US support. I spent 6 months there in 90-91, and found the Saudis I met uniformly very happy and gushing with pride in their country and their King. I think you’re full of it.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          Because the Saudis you met were probably all benefiting from the government system. The majority of the population is dirt poor and not happy with their corrupt rulers.

      3. avatar JasonM says:

        Where are these boogeymen?
        The Middle east, mostly.

        So…not here. And not a threat to any of us.

        The government has been scaring us with the story that “they” plan to come over here and slaughter every American, since the ’80s (I remember seeing a movie-of-the-week propaganda piece back in the mid ’80s about muslim terrorists).
        They’ve been killing Americans since the 1980’s, remember the Beirut barracks bombing?

        Do you mean the Beirut in Lebanon? That’s not in North America. The attackers considered them occupational forces. But notice how after the attack, when the US withdrew from Beirut, the terrorists came over here and kept bombing Americans? No? That’s because they didn’t. Once the US forces left their country, they stopped the fight.

        But there have only been a few attacks, and all of those as a direct response to greater acts of violence committed by the US government, its allies, or puppet dictators.
        I can’t disprove a negative; I’ll invite you to prove your premise though.

        Every attack (WTC I & II, USS Cole, etc.) has been claimed as retribution for US government acts (like the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children under Clinton’s sanctions).

        We gun owners like to put the number of gun deaths and sensationalized media coverage of high profile shootings in proper context. And we like to point out that one gun owner going nuts and killing a dozen people implies nothing about the other gun owners.
        Why not apply that same consideration to muslims?
        Most of us do.

        Not apparently. Anti-muslim, and anti-arab, sentiment appears very high among gun owners.

        The number of Americans killed by muslim terrorists in all terrorist attacks is smaller than the number of Americans killed by gang warfare every year.
        You compared gang-related deaths, (involving gang-members, who embraced the danger inherent in their lifestyle) to the deaths of office workers? Really?

        I used that specifically because that’s the bulk gun death number that anti-gun people use to try to push gun-control, not to imply that an accountant killed in his office is as responsible for that as gang member killed in a turf war.
        If you’d like I could use heart disease, swimming pool drownings, bath tub drownings, car accidents, etc.
        Or if I used the same timeframe, I could have just counted innocent bystanders in gang violence.
        The point is, the number is small, and definitely not worthy of the anti-muslim hysteria that it has created.

        19 deranged killers from Saudi Arabia (a brutal dictatorship that would have been overthrown decades ago, without US government support) do not represent the billion plus muslims around the world. The vast majority of them just want to live in peace. And those attacks are anomalies, not the rule, just like school shootings.
        Correct, not all Muslims are terrorists; however, most terrorists are Muslims.

        Incorrect. The ones you hear about are mostly muslim, and at the moment muslims might account for a plurality. But terrorist is a loaded word used to describe what are better described as 4GW fighters. It’s a tactic that poorly equipped and poorly funded groups use to resist a much superior force: attack the will of the people funding the army.
        The VC were terrorists, by modern standards, but they weren’t muslim. There are many similar resistance movements around the world today, including suicide bombers, run by non muslims.
        A few years ago, I read an article on LewRockwell.com reviewing a book someone wrote that analyzed suicide bombers over the 20th century. The majority were not muslim. Virtually all were dirt-poor, with no other means to resist what they saw as evil military occupation.
        And the guys fighting US troops in the middle east today do so for political reasons more than religious ones. There have even been several documented christian members of the Iraqi resistance.

        Currently, even among most of the extremists, the only desire is to remove western influence over their political and economic systems.
        False, among most Muslim extremists, their goal is to establish an Islamic Caliphate and take over the world.

        Not true, unless you’re drawing the extremist line farther out than I am, specifically to weed out those who don’t want a caliphate. I’m including all the people willing to blow themselves up to kill Iraqis who work for the puppet government, or set IEDs to kill US forces under the extremist label. Most of them just want the foreign troops and influence gone.

        Few if any of them have any desire to come over here and kill Americans. When they were using the same strategies to resist Soviet influence, back in the ’80s, they were “freedom fighters” supported by the CIA, now that they’re resisting the US government, they’re “terrorists”.
        Correct, freedom fighters fight soldiers, terrorists kill civilians. See the difference there?

        What difference? They resisted Soviet troops as “freedom fighters”, now they resist US troops as “terrorists” or “insurgents”. The only difference is the belief that the US government is somehow inherently right in its actions.

        You mentioned the Beirut barracks bombing, that was a military target. Are you calling them freedom fighters? I’d say resistance fighters, because their goal is definitely not what I’d call “freedom”.

        Every “plot” thwarted by the federal government over the last decade or more has been an entrapment scheme, where a paid informant prods impressionable, young muslims to attack a target, then provides an FBI built bomb to do so.
        Damn right, and if the FBI hadn’t provided some BS bomb, the basterds would have found a way to do it themselves. Remember that little thing in Boston? The DC sniper?

        The DC sniper was an extortion racket, so not applicable here. The Boston bombing is a better example, but it’s one event, no more basis for an argument than Sandy Hook is for AR-15 bans.
        As for the claim that the entrapped bombers would have attempted something anyway, that’s a load of crap. Have you read any of their transcripts? There are several where the “terrorists” tell the FBI plant that he’s crazy, and to leave them alone. But the plant keeps pushing, and in some case threatens or otherwise coerces the “terrorists” to agree.

        And if some of the accusations against Eric Holder are true, the FBI has been doing that since Oklahoma City…which is possibly why they now supply the bombs, so they know nothing will explode.
        If all the accusations against Eric Holder were true, he’d have horns.

        But this one has some evidence supporting it. There are internal documents that have been suppressed that show the FBI might have assisted McVeigh.

    3. avatar Gruney says:

      I also think the terrorist threat is overblown and used to pass things like the Patriot Act, which was an instant oxymoron.

      I don’t usually buy into conspiracy theories, but the Boston Bombing has too many hinky things for me to accept it at face value. The “shelter in place” and shoving rifles in the faces of people in their own homes is a national embarrassment. I fear for our Republic.

    4. avatar Accur81 says:

      Perhaps there will be (another) attack by Muslims at an epic scale, such as 9/11, and maybe not. It should be patently obvious that radical Islam is no friend to Christians. I don’t assume, as a Christian, that every Muslim is out to murder me, although there are certainly Muslims out there who will gladly murder someone for the perceived crime of being a Christian.

      So the possibility does certainly exist that terrorists will strike the US in another concerted effort with the intent to cause massive casualties and death. That is simply one of many reasons why I chose to be armed.

    5. avatar rlc2 says:

      Do some reading here JasonM. http://www.longwarjournal.org/

      1. avatar MothaLova says:

        Long War Journal is a great site. Very strong reporting.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        None of that is islamic terrorists attacking America. It’s Asians, who happen to be muslims, trying to repel a foreign power controlling their lands and people.

    6. avatar cmeat says:

      perhaps one or more of the points presented are less persuasive than others. far be it for me to say… i agree more or less with all of it and will reference this in certain situations.
      the important thing here is that as a body, presented in its entirety this may sway certain individuals towards being less spastic about guns. in church. or school. or on public transportation. or in my pocket.
      so if it’s the swarthy male irrationality that flips the switch, so be it.

  23. avatar Patrick Hayes says:

    Bravo!!!! Well written….What a list!!!!

  24. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Thank you Mike!
    This one got saved to my favorites. I don’t suppose you could sing the above and save the recording for us, I would love to drop that into the personal rotation.

    Those who would knock the Renaissance would do well to remember that time period gave us the flintlock that was used to help America separate itself from the dictates of the King of England.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      The flintlock was also the tool they tried to use to subjugate us. The tool itself is neutral.

      However, the Renaissance marked the end of about a thousand years of barbarism, so I surely won’t knock it.

    2. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

      No, the flintlock in its final form was centuries later, in the 18th century, possibly derived from the late 17th century snaphaunce.

  25. avatar Pg says:

    *Stands on desk*
    “O Captain! My captain!”

    The most honorable salute I know to give an English teacher. Very well reasoned and very well written!

    1. avatar Jake in AL says:

      +1

    2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      +1

  26. avatar SelousX says:

    I am blown away, thankfully only metaphorically. Yes, all of this; these reasons. Not feelings, but reasons, is where the statists, who would seek a boot on our necks in pursuit of “common sense” firearms legislation, and I part company.

  27. avatar Gary in GA says:

    From H.H Humphrey to Pajama Boy as Democratic icons shows how far they’ve fallen.

    Great piece. Yeah, the article too….

  28. avatar Gregolas says:

    Thank you.
    Every student, in every school in America, should be required to copy this list, once a week, from fifth grade until high school graduation.

  29. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Amen, Mike. Every time I read it: amen.

    There are two little girls who are the primary reason I carry: to protect them, to ensure that I go home safely to them, and to help leave them a country that remains as free as it was when I entered it.

  30. avatar Chris says:

    BREAKING: TTAG posts best defense of concealed (and open) carry and the 2nd Amendment EVER. thank you.

  31. avatar Table says:

    “Look, you see how he doesn’t mention the word “penis” anywhere?”

  32. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Very good piece. May I add “when I go to Kroger at night” LOL

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      I thought you didn’t have Kroger in your area any more?

      You’re stuck with da Jools and the occasional Mariano’s since Dominick’s shut down.

      1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

        It’s called a joke avid…I do think there might still be a kroger around Kankakee where I’m from. I hate jewel( lost me with their card which tracked you}. Never seen a Marianos. Strack,Aldi and the wife goes to Ultra foods. If anyone knew Ultra is very dangerous and full of ghetto lowlifes. Worse than going to Walmart…good to know someone memorizes my postsLOL

        1. avatar Avid Reader says:

          Yeah, I figured that out a few seconds too late. . .

          Cheer up-maybe you’ll get a Piggly Wiggly near you! Now they don’t need to worry about being mistaken for
          Moo & Oink.

          http://youtu.be/zz8fTbLjo9c

        2. avatar cmeat says:

          in chicago we have food 4 less which is kroger without the handy- baggers.

  33. avatar Avid Reader says:

    Nicely done. Excellent piece of writing.

    How does one carry concealed when wearing tights? I’d think it might require one hell of a codpiece.

  34. avatar Accur81 says:

    Excellent work, sir. I’ll share this on all of my social media outlets as well. Liberal progressives will see it, even though they may not be convinced by it. Hence, it’s clear that liberal progressives have only a tenuous grasp of reality. We, the people of the gun, have our eyes wide open.

  35. avatar sgt frank says:

    Very Nicely done……

  36. avatar publius2 says:

    Bravo Zulu.

  37. avatar DBM says:

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    And with the blood of scumbags who would prey on others.

  38. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” I bet this would go over like a lead balloon with most modern Donkeycraps.

  39. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

    What about irrational, honest politicians and rational, dishonest politicians?

  40. avatar Larry says:

    Simply beautiful

  41. avatar Jay says:

    I won’t disagree with your justifications for carrying a gun based on our nations history, Constitution, etc. But once you involve religion you now go down a slippery slope. Would Jesus carry a gun, or any weapon? Jesus could have stopped his crucifixion but he didn’t. Didn’t Jesus preach peace, loving and kindness? Isn’t one of the 10 Commandments “Though Shall Not Kill?” (Notice there is nothing there about self defense).

    Mixing violence with religion is a nasty combination. Millions upon millions have lost their lives throughout the world’s history as a result. Furthermore, what do you think drives the terrorists you so much fear that you wrote about in your post? If you want to justify using violence based on the Constitution, freedom, etc that’s fine, just leave God and religion out of it.

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      ‘Isn’t one of the 10 Commandments “Though Shall Not Kill?”’

      No. That is from the King James mis-translation. A better translation is “Do not murder”.

      “I won’t disagree with your justifications for carrying a gun based on our nations history, Constitution, etc. But once you involve religion you now go down a slippery slope.”

      Religion, i.e. Christianity, is a(or is it “the”?) justification for human rights in America. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights…”

      “Would Jesus carry a gun, or any weapon? Jesus could have stopped his crucifixion but he didn’t.”

      Jesus had 10 legions of angels on call. He did not need a gun, or any weapon.
      He did not stop his crucifixion but he chose not to. He a certain duty to fulfill by being crucified.

      “Mixing violence with religion is a nasty combination. Millions upon millions have lost their lives throughout the world’s history as a result. Furthermore, what do you think drives the terrorists you so much fear that you wrote about in your post?”

      What drives terrorists is Islam, not “religion” in general. No other major religion besides Islam is calling for acts of terrorism.
      Other religions do not call for the murders of people, period.

      1. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

        No. That is from the King James mis-translation. A better translation is “Do not murder”.

        I think we’ve been over this before, in another thread.

        No, that is not a “better” translation, and the King James Version is both literally accurate and – within the context of the rest of it – a faithful translation as well, for the simple reason that Hebrew, like Arabic, does not have a word for “murder” as a narrow category at all. Instead, those languages have to convey the sense of “murder” in metaphorical, allusive or poetic language, drawing on context or allusions to other material – something semitic languages have to do for a lot of things, since they are less technically precise than Greek or Latin were in their day (the saying is “the Greeks have a word for it”, not the Jews or the Arabs).

        Yes, Hebrew does have a range of words for “kill”, and some do indeed have a flavour of “kill wrongfully” rather than (say) “kill the vermin”. But the very fact that “thou shalt not kill” is using that, then giving the sense of “kill wrongfully and with guilt” from context and allusions to other passages, means that making a literal translation as “thou shalt not murder” is incorrect, and not a better translation at all. It’s still clear from the context what is meant, but firming it up as “murder” is going too far in that direction (but if you were just giving someone a snapshot, and couldn’t put things in context like a good preacher giving a sound sermon, you might have to use the word “murder” because it was the least wrong choice among choices that were each too short to be right). Even though they aren’t murder, the commandment is also forbidding you to kill by driving while drunk – or by not observing gun safety.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        “Religion, i.e. Christianity, is a(or is it “the”?) justification for human rights in America. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights…””

        Sorry, but the use of the word “Creator” in the late 1700s was a sure marker that the author was a deist, not a Christian. Had he been a Christian, he would have more likely said “Our Lord” or something like that.

        So unfortunately your citation of the Declaration of Independence as proof that rights necessarily proceed from the Christian god is, frankly, fallacious.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          Your opinion is merely that, and does not coincide with any of the reading I have done of actual works of the era (1700’s) which utilize the word “Creator”. Nice try though.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          “Your opinion is merely that, and does not coincide with any of the reading I have done of actual works of the era (1700′s) which utilize the word “Creator”. Nice try though.”

          So you’ve read a lot of works from the era Deism was popular and saw a lot of use of the preferred Deist term for god? Remarkable.

          In particular Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was in fact a Deist.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Arguing whether the Founders were Christians vs Deists is a non sequitur in the context of the claim that our natural rights as humans are derived from the existence of a Supreme Being, who endowed humans with those certain rights.

          “Creator” = God = Supreme Being, whom the Founders recognized as the agent of endowment of natural human rights.

          Now, if you want to discuss the sacredness of life, such a philosophy is generally expressed in terms of Christian belief. But that is a completely different discussion, related to the implication/application of our Creator-endowed, natural human rights.

        4. avatar Paul G. says:

          Jefferson himself never felt that way. He was no fundamentalist, but was most definitively a theist.

        5. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Oh, Jefferson was definitely a *theist*. But a deist is a theist, just not a believer in an intercessory god, and therefore not a Christian.

          (In other words if you are among those who believe that deist is just an obfuscative word for “atheist” you are mistaken.)

        6. avatar Paul G. says:

          You really do not understand terms do you. No use discussing this further.

        7. avatar SteveInCO says:

          So are you trying to tell me a deist is an atheist, or what?

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism

          An 18th century deist denied that god interfered with the natural laws of the universe. In other words, non-intercessory; he didn’t intercede. And obviously, to believe that god didn’t interfere with the natural workings of the universe presupposes a belief in god, so a deist isn’t an atheist.

          So precisely, what term is it I don’t understand?

          I think, in your responses to both me and others on this and related issues you have demonstrated who it’s no use talking to, and who doesn’t understand the terminology.

        8. avatar Paul G. says:

          Christianity is theistic.

        9. avatar SteveInCO says:

          yes, Christianity is theistic.

          So?

          It means that all Christians are theists (which I’d never dream of denying) but it doesn’t mean that all theists are Christians. (If you have trouble wrapping your mind around the distinction, are Muslims Christians? Are they theists?) I’ve stated that Jefferson was a Deist, and I’ve agreed that deists are theists. That doesn’t make them Christians. And it doesn’t make Jefferson a Christian. And it doesn’t make the Declaration of Independence a Christian document.

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Shorter Jay: I’m completely ignorant of Christian doctrine, but I’ll tell Christians what I think their beliefs should be anyway.

        11. avatar Paul G. says:

          Deists are not theists. Maybe you should reread your own blather, Jay. I have no trouble wrapping my mind around concepts. I have a mind. You have the ability to type. You should avoid topics that you are not truly acquainted regarding.

        12. avatar SteveInCO says:

          “Deists are not theists.”

          Hmm, let’s see.

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism: “belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world ”

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism “a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe ”

          So a theist is a believer in god. Deists believe in god–it’s just not a god that meddles in the present day world. Not excluded by the definition of theist. Therefore Deists are theists.

          You are so full of it, it must be gushing out your ears, but keep shoveling it in anyway, keep simply asserting you are right in spite of all the evidence others present to the contrary. That sort of thought pattern befits a gun grabber; MDA probably has a job for you.

        13. avatar Paul G says:

          Sorry, can’t copy and paste from my phone. Still, my point is correct. Theists believe in a God that is not indifferent and does interact with His creation. Now do you get why your blather is so juvenile? Deists are not theists. You are no scholar.

        14. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Theists believe in a God that is not indifferent and does interact with His creation. Now do you get why your blather is so juvenile? Deists are not theists. You are no scholar.

          Actually, the original definition of theism is belief in God, as opposed to atheist, meaning no belief in God. The later definition of theism as belief in a revealed God, contrasted with deism, meaning belief in a non-revealed God, is fairly modern.

          Both definitions are correct under current usage, but the definition of theism as the antonym of atheism far predates the definition of theism as the antonym of deist.

          But most importantly, with respect to what the Founders believed, and particularly in the context of the Declaration of Independence, it is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of reading comprehension that the Declaration’s invocation of natural human rights being endowed by man’s Creator is a tacit admission that the Founders were theists, in the sense that they believed in God – the God who was the Creator, who endowed man with certain unalienable rights.

          The Founders believed in God. They believed that God created man. They believed that God endowed man with certain unalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

          Any questions?

        15. avatar Paul G. says:

          I have never seen the definition set by revealed or not-revealed, however it still aligns well with the definitions I have seen (active, caring vs. indifferent). A problem occurs when one mixes definition groups. You cannot take the definitions used in theist vs atheist and apply it to discussion which also includes the category of deist. It is like trying to use digital in an analog system.

        16. avatar Paul G says:

          How inane can you be? Deists reject a key portion of theistic doctrine. They are not theists. You have things exactly backwards, probably happens to you often.
          Perhaps your IQ is so low that you should forego firearms ownership.

      3. avatar Jay says:

        Once you attempt to define “to kill” out of absolute terms then religion loses its intended purpose and becomes a means to an end. Who is to say whether a killing is lawful or unlawful? In whose eyes? It’s too subjective.This is where I find fault in bringing God into the picture with guns, as soon as you do you throw out the baby with the bath water.

        Yes, I am critical of Christians because they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. What about all of your faith in God, why do you need a gun to protect you if “He has a plan” for you? Shouldn’t your faith be stronger than anything wordly, that if you were killed by someone you would go to heaven? Does God really want you one day to kill someone? Hmmm, I thought all life is sacred? And what about turning the other cheek and loving your enemy?

        If every so called Christian traded in hour of their time at the gun range and volunteered instead, perhaps worked with the poor or those suffering addiction, I guarantee you that America would be a much safer place. This is how the Bible speaks to me, it encourages me to reach out to others and help people.

        I know I am coming to your forum and antagonizing you, however, the debate here is not about gun rights. I disagree with the author mentioning God, it’s a contradiction.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          I disagree with you mentioning God. That is a true contradiction. Your claiming understanding of His will, and your attempting to speak for Him are even worse.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          So, a non-Christian, self-admittedly knows nothing of Christian doctrine, theology, or philosophy, lecturing Christians of how our beliefs should inform our worldview and our actions?

          You’ll forgive me, won’t you, if I keep my own counsel on the Implications of Christian beliefs and the right to use self-defense?

          Given your admitted antagonism, I, and I doubt anyone else, will find any value in debating theology with you. Pearls before swine, and all.

        3. avatar Jay says:

          Whether I am a Christian or not is a moot point, I don’t need to be one to point out the hypocrisy in being a gun proponent and writing:

          “There is no gift so precious as God’s gift of life.”

          I highly doubt Jesus would carry a handgun nor advocate violence and I don’t need to be a scriptural authority to make that claim. It doesn’t take an expert to read that Jesus preached compassion, loving, and kindness, to “turn the other cheek” to “love your enemies.”

          2000 years later and although technology has improved, it’s still Cain killing Able, ie violence still exsits on a mass scale. Human beings still have so much hate for one another and view violence as the solution. We even have modern day historical examples of non-violent leaders such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr, both who completely changed the world for the better without using violence.

          If the Christian community as a whole made a concerted effort to raise socio economic conditions in America, and I am not speaking of money, through volunteering efforts, being there to talk to people, helping people overcome drug addictions, then it would be a much better country and world. We are all going to die, so why fight it? When it’s your time, it’s your time. In the short time I have on this planet I’d rather try to improve the world around me than arm myself.

        4. avatar Paul G says:

          Your ignorance will not likely diminish soon, since you opine freely without any facts at your disposal. Half-truths and unsupported opinions only doom your commentary. I don’t comment on brain surgery though I know people who have undergone it, and I have even seen it done on TV. I have no basis to speak on it intelligently….hint hint.

        5. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Jay, Jesus also is quoted as telling his followers to sell their cloaks and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). He clearly understood the need to self defense, i.e., to defend their lives.

          It has been my experience that Christians believe life is sacred and should be defended.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Isn’t one of the 10 Commandments “Though Shall Not Kill?” (Notice there is nothing there about self defense).

      Actually, the commandment says, “Do not commit murder.” Bit of a difference, that.

      Mixing violence with religion is a nasty combination. Millions upon millions have lost their lives throughout the world’s history as a result.

      The twentieth century alone, with tens upon tens of millions of people killed in the name of socialist, secular humanism, demonstrates which philosophy has the greater capacity for genocide.

      Furthermore, what do you think drives the terrorists you so much fear that you wrote about in your post? If you want to justify using violence based on the Constitution, freedom, etc that’s fine, just leave God and religion out of it.

      Right, because all religions are the same, and all religious philosophy is the same.

      We get it: there are several atheists who comment on TTAG who are offended by any mention of God, much less invocation of God as the source of our natural rights. But guess what? Just as hoplophobes don’t have a right not to be irrationally fearful of law-abiding citizens carrying guns, atheists don’t have a right not to be offended by law-abiding citizens exercising their freedom of speech and religious expression.

      1. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

        Actually, the commandment says, “Do not commit murder.” Bit of a difference, that.

        No, it says no such thing – because there is no Hebrew word for murder. Bit of a difference, that.

        For a fuller explanation, see my other reply to this misunderstanding on this thread.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Ratzach, not mut, definitely implies murder over kill. So does context found within the OT itself, to include the legality of death as a punishment. Killing for legitimate reasons, to include self-defense, violates no commandment.

        2. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

          That “definitely” is (definitely) incorrect, because you have presented a false dichotomy. It isn’t a choice between murder and guiltless killing; rather, the Hebrew word also covers (say) killing by driving while drunk, since it means improper killing. Killing by driving while drunk is also forbidden, which it would not be if the ban was specifically on murder. Murder is indeed covered by the ban, but not only murder. As for the context elsewhere in the Bible – that is why “murder” should not be used in the translation of the Ten Commandments, since that context is also present to inform readers of translations of the Bible. It just means that if you must oversimplify by quoting out of context, the oversimplification “murder” may be less wrong than the only other oversimplifications available – but you really shouldn’t be doing that at all.

          But you would have known all that if you had looked at the other comment of mine I mentioned.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Killing by driving drunk is murder.
          To use “kill” is very non-specific, “murder” is the better term. It creates understanding that there is legitimate and illegitimate types of killing.

        4. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

          Paul G., you are – correctly – pointing out that “kill” isn’t specific enough. On its own, of course it isn’t – but neither was the original, and we have the context of other Biblical passages to clarify it for us, just as the original needed context to be used for that. So “thou shalt not kill” works, where “thou shalt not murder” doesn’t because it is too specific.

          It looks as though we are talking past each other. Up until this point, I thought you had misunderstood the Bible itself and/or the Hebrew usages found in it. Now it appears that you may indeed understand them, and that what you have in mind from them is what I have in mind from them, but that you just aren’t using the English in any mutually comprehensible way. That is, when you write “murder” … well, “I do not think that word means what you think it means”.

          This isn’t just disagreement between us, any more than if we disagreed which side of the road to drive on in a particular country. To make things work, you should be using the same terminology as other users of a language, just as you should drive on the same side of the road as other drivers. On this one, I’m using the word “murder” the way other English speakers do, and you aren’t, as the wikipedia article on murder shows:-

          Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

          Do you see that that article recognises that there are kinds of killing that are wrong but still aren’t murder? I put it that way as otherwise you might just think “well, because killing by driving drunkenly is murder, that means there is malice aforethought when people drive drunkenly”. But we don’t even have to figure out what malice aforethought is, we only have to recognise that people who used English thought it was worth setting full blown murder apart from other kinds of wrong killing. That means that a translation for people who understand “murder” that way shouldn’t have “thou shalt not murder”, because it would be telling them that the commandment doesn’t cover any killing that is wrongful but not that narrow sort. You just think that “murder” isn’t that narrow – but you are not on the same page as others.

          So “[i]t creates understanding that there is legitimate and illegitimate types of killing” is wrong, not only because we already know that from ordinary usage, let alone wider context, but also because it says of vehicular homicide (say), “meh – not an ethical problem covered by religion”. It says to people that they shouldn’t have a crisis of conscience over drink driving, that it is merely a prudential matter (and so on for other kinds of wrong killing).

        5. avatar Paul G. says:

          I am on the right page, you are not. All of your verbosity will not change that.

      2. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

        Short and sweet, then: I backed up my position, you are just repeating your claim that I am wrong and that you are right without ever addressing what I told you. That’s just argument by repeated assertion (also described here ).

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          I am not arguing with you. There is no sense in trying to reason with the unreasonable. You have demonstrated that you will continue to blather on incorrectly making assertions and trying to talk others into believing your foolish ideas.
          Enjoy your wrongness.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Arrogant, much?

          He did far more to back up what he was saying than you did, but go ahead, dismiss it simply because it disagrees with you.

      3. avatar SteveInCO says:

        “We get it: there are several atheists who comment on TTAG who are offended by any mention of God, much less invocation of God as the source of our natural rights. But guess what?”

        Personally, what rubs THIS atheist the wrong way is any implication that since I don’t believe in god I must be immoral, or that the ONLY CONCEIVABLE source of morality must be god. People (and I note that you, Chip, didn’t say that; I’m addressing this to a larger audience) who say this sort of thing are going out of their way to insult me (by accusing me of having no morals simply becuase I don’t do their religion) and what I believe to be true. Then somehow I am the intolerant one when I point that out.

    3. avatar cmeat says:

      if swarthy males are coming at you because they view you as an infidel, then they have dragged religion into the situation.
      when i dress for the day, i don’t ask myself wwjd? he and i would get along famously. you don’t have to be christian to follow the golden rule.

  42. avatar Hill CountryDog says:

    Bravo. Bravo.

  43. avatar redhed100 says:

    What I will never understand, is why can’t “Creator” mean any God that you choose to worship? The only ones it would not cover would be Atheists and they could just pretend it meant their mom and dad or a primordial soup. If someone chose to think their “Creator” is a shoe, than so be it, I could care less what you think it is. It does not have to mean Christianity, even though that is what the Founders intended. People need to leave Christians alone. We are targeted more and more. Our right to religious freedom is trampled on everyday. I am very tired of it.

    1. avatar cmeat says:

      higher power. supreme being. etc. i’m not gonna say the “m” word. and i do not mean muslim. or muslin. but inclusion is a good thing.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      “Our right to religious freedom is trampled on everyday. I am very tired of it.”

      The overwhelming majority of what you complain about is people, acting in an official government capcity, being told to not use their government position and authority as vehicles to proselytize their faith. The government should remain neutral on such issues.

  44. avatar Brandon says:

    Yes to everything in this article!! That’s why in Cuba, when the dictator Fidel Castro (who at first pretended to be democratic, promising free elections) took power, one of the first things the monster did was disarm the people…

    “Armas, para que?”, I.e. “Guns..what for?” was the cynical saying as he disarmed a docile unsuspecting populace… Make no mistake, dictators and would-be dictators are VERY afraid of an armed people…As we Cubans sadly learned, not having a Second Amendment…

  45. avatar Q says:

    Excellent article.

    1. avatar cmeat says:

      well if you enjoyed that just wait until you read this scintillating counterpoint coming up next!

  46. avatar 1735099 says:

    * I can’t foretell the future. I carry not for the things I can anticipate, but for the things I can’t.
    In that case you should also carry a shovel. You never know when you might encounter bullshit.
    * Evil exists and may confront anyone at any time and any place.
    Yep – he usually has a tail and horns. But then, he’s a supernatural being and a gun would be useless.
    * Self-defense is a God-given, natural, unalienable right.
    That’s funny – my God talks about “turning the other cheek”. Your God must be a different one.
    * There is no gift so precious as God’s gift of life.
    Absolutely. That’s why shooting someone to death is an affront to that gift.
    * To fail to protect the greatest gift devalues all life.
    See above – unless you believe that your life is more worthy than everyone else’s.
    * My life is worth far more to me, those that love me, and to a just society than the lives of vicious brutes that would take it.
    These same “vicious brutes” are also loved. Many of them would claim that you are “vicious”. What gives you the right to judge?
    * The lives of the innocent—friend or stranger—are worth far more to me and to a just society than the lives of vicious brutes that would take them.
    Yes – I wonder how the families of the innocents killed by firearms (eg the children killed at Sandy Hook) feel about this.
    * Three times in my life I have raised my right hand and sworn a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I have never betrayed those oaths and never will.
    I don’t need to swear an oath to defend my values. I live them.
    * The Constitution is only paper, a statement of principles and intentions. When the will wavers and when some wish to change, ignore or destroy those principles and intentions for light and transient reasons, only the threat and force of arms will suffice to preserve liberty.
    I think Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin had much the same idea.
    * From time to time, politicians forget their place. The carrying and use of arms by law abiding citizens helps them, gently, to remember.
    Tell me when armed insurrection has been successful in your country this (or last) century. The world has changed a bit since the days of your founding fathers.
    * A handgun is the most convenient, usual and effective means of self-defence.
    And it is also easily concealed and carried by criminals.
    * By carrying my handgun, I honour the foresight and wisdom of the Founders in writing the Second Amendment.
    As far as I know, in 1791, effective rapid-fire handguns weren’t invented yet. The most advanced weapon at that time would probably have been either the Kentucky long rifle, capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards. The Founders had no idea about modern weaponry.
    * Going armed reinforces and upholds the Social Contract.
    Going armed offends the Social Contract. Trust is an important component of that contract. Fear is not.
    * I know that Thomas Jefferson was right:
    Jefferson was a great man, but he was not gifted with prophecy. He would be turning in his grave at the state of your country now.
    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    That may have been acceptable in his time. We have progressed since then. I doubt that anyone wants to go back to the savagery that existed then – except perhaps ISIL – that’s how they operate.
    * That’s why we have a Second Amendment, not for hunting, not for self-defense, but to allow the common man–if necessary–to resist a tyrannical government and always to deter tyranny.
    Most civilised western democracy don’t need a second amendment, and looking at the gun homicide statistics, they are safer places to live than the USA.
    * It demonstrates—day after day—that I am the master of my government, not its slave; that elected officials work for me.
    We have been able to do that in this country (Australia) without bloodshed for over 200 years. What is wrong with you lot?
    * I am a free man and no evidence of that fact is more meaningful and convincing than that I own and carry the firearms I prefer.
    No – you are a fearing man – not a free man – if you have to carry a firearm. You are a slave to fear.
    * It sorely vexes those who would enslave me—all of us—through tyranny, soft or hard.
    Not really. I couldn’t give a colonial. The only thing that vexes me is Americans telling me what to believe in my own country.
    * It reminds them that in America, there are lines no rational, honest politician dare cross.
    Really? Your history doesn’t demonstrate that. Where will I start? Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, George Wallace, Jesse Jackson, Bob Ney, Larry Craig etc – the list goes on.
    On the other hand, many great men have been slaughtered or wounded by firearms in your country, including Jack Kennedy, Bob Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Ronald Reagan.
    * It reminds them that in America, there are lines no irrational, dishonest politician dare cross.
    See above.
    * It reminds them that every iota of power they possess is on temporary loan from me and every other American.
    See above.
    * It reminds us all that the whims of the highest politician may not prevail over the Bill of Rights because our will has not flagged and will not flag.
    See above.
    * It is the very means by which an oppressed citizenry may force despots to respect the Bill of Rights.
    That may have been true in 1791. It is not the case in 2014.
    * Because politicians harbouring tyrannical intentions fear armed citizens like a vampire fears a crucifix, it serves to positively identify those that hide behind spin, teleprompters and clever lies.
    That is ideological nonsense. Explain how carrying a firearm “identifies” anyone or anything.
    * Most politicians care about the welfare and continuing existence of individual citizens only in the abstract. Even honourable politicians can do little more than those who only pretend to care.
    You must have crap politicians in your country.
    * Even in our democracy, tyrants are always present and always waiting their chance.
    Yep – we get them here too. They get voted out.
    * With this in mind, Hubert Humphrey, one of the most famous and orthodox Democrats of the last century was right–and refreshingly honest and non-partisan–when he said:
    “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
    The NRA got to him.
    * Those who willingly and meekly surrender to criminals surrender more than valuables; they surrender their dignity and honor; they surrender civilization itself.
    We don’t “willingly and meekly surrender to criminals” in this country and we don’t carry guns. It’s unnecessary.
    * I am old-fashioned enough to think it my duty to protect those who have less ability than mine to protect themselves.
    Me too – but I’ve never needed a gun to do that.
    * I could not live with myself for failing to protect a woman in danger. Call it sexist if you must, but if you’re unarmed and under attack, would you really want to call an unarmed, untrained statist? Would Pajama Boy save you?
    Carrying a gun doesn’t make you a man – it actually brands you as a coward.
    * I know human nature. Like the Shadow, I know what evil lurks in the hearts of men.
    Really – what is that supposed to mean. Maybe evil is male?
    * I know that many criminals experience pangs of conscience. I also know that it does not prevent them from being predators, only that it occasionally causes them to feel badly, for a few fleeting seconds, thereafter.
    You seem to divide the world into criminals and others. What a simple view of the world you harbour – goodies and baddies. Most grow out of that by the end of grade school.
    * I know that sociopaths exist, in greater numbers than most imagine, and that they have no conscience.
    Yep – and quite a few of them have slaughtered hundreds over the years in your country. A sociopath with a gun is dangerous – without a gun – not so much.
    * I know that some people really like hurting others. Rarely does one need to engage in psychological navel gazing to understand the actions of predators. They do it because they want to do it, because they like to do it, and some, because it is an intense sexual thrill.
    I wonder what this has to do with concealed carry?
    * I know that such people are everywhere, and are for most, impossible to pick out from the mass of humankind.
    And you want them to be able to carry concealed firearms?
    * I know that such people can be stopped only by the presence of overwhelming and imminent force: the gun.
    Not necessarily. If they’re carrying all bets are off.
    * I know that living a virtuous life is no defence against such people.
    Wow – what a revelation.
    * I know that having a Progressive political and social philosophy not only is no defense against such people, it encourages, helps, even creates them.
    And allowing everyone to carry concealed firearms isn’t “progressive?”
    * I know that only bullets will stop some predators. Using reason or empathy on such “people” is like the cries of a wounded bird to a carnivore.
    You’re full of hyperbole.
    * Politicians sometimes speak of a “war on crime.” They have no idea. The streets are the battlefield, and whether we like it or not, we are all the combatants.
    Not in this country. But then we have a fraction of the available firearms that you do.
    * The predators that would carry that battlefield into our homes are usually the most dangerous of all.
    More hyperbole.
    * The police have no legal obligation to protect me—or anyone.
    You have a very strange police force.
    * The police simply can’t protect anyone; there are far too few of them and far too many of us.
    We don’t need protection when every crim isn’t carrying.
    * When seconds count, the police are always minutes (or in Detroit and many, many other places, an hour) away.
    I’ve lived in outback Queensland for years. Nearest police officer is hours away. Not a problem.
    * I accept personal responsibility and live accordingly.
    Me too,
    * As an adult, I am solely responsible for my continuing existence.
    Me too. That’s why I gave up smoking years ago.
    * As an adult, I am also responsible for the continuing existence of children.
    As a teacher, I’ve been caring for children for over 40 years.
    * Accepting personal responsibility encourages me to be continually aware of my surroundings, to be tactically, situationally aware.
    Yeah – learnt that whilst serving in Vietnam. It’s called hyper vigilance. If you’re as aware as that, you’d probably better see a counsellor.
    * Having situational awareness makes it more likely I won’t ever need to use my handgun.
    See above.
    * My training and experience give me confidence that if I do need it, I will use it effectively and properly, though I will always pray to be fast and accurate.
    The last thing I would ever want to do is carry a gun. Doing so for 12 months in Vietnam was enough for me.
    * It gives me the ability to deter those younger, stronger or more numerous than myself.
    I haven’t found it necessary.
    * It gives me the ability to defeat those younger, stronger or more numerous than myself if they are too stupid, too drugged, or too predatory to be deterred.
    I don’t “defeat” them, I avoid them. Works for me.
    * I know that criminals fear the guns of armed citizens far more than the guns of the police. They should.
    I haven had this conversation with a criminal lately.
    * Domestic terrorists and murderers have always been with us. The victims and survivors of Columbine High School (1999), Virginia Tech (2007), Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012), and the Boston Marathon attack (2013)—and I–have no doubt of this.
    Yep – but they find it much easier to get their hands on deadly weapons in your country than mine.
    * In virtually every school shooting in recent American history, the police played virtually no role in stopping the killers. Armed citizens did.
    Yep – worked out well, didn’t it?
    * We are at war with uniquely deranged, blood-thirsty terrorists determined to slaughter Americans on American soil.
    Yep. Problem is in your country they’re armed.
    * I have no doubt that Islamist terrorists are waiting for their chance, and on American soil. I have no doubt others will soon walk over our open borders.
    Watch out for the Presbyterians.
    * I frequent the places (schools, theaters, shopping malls, grocery stores and other soft targets) terrorists long to attack.
    You’d be a bit of a twit. If I was as paranoid as that, I’d avoid these places.
    * I can imagine few feelings worse than being unarmed when and where a terrorist attack takes place.
    No problem if they’re not armed.
    * Even unarmed, I would have no option but to attack armed terrorists shooting innocents.
    Good luck with that.
    * Armed, I would be able to save at least some lives and stop at least some killers.
    You’d more likely shoot yourself or some innocent bystander.
    * I could not bear the thought that I was less prepared than the Boy Scouts—in any situation.
    Just say the promise – you’ll be OK.
    * It is important to me to know that I can make a real difference when it most matters.
    Me too – but I don’t need a gun to do that.
    * I appreciate well-designed and made devices.
    Me too. I love sports cars. Guns – not so much.
    * Firearms are like fire extinguishers. When one is needed, it’s needed right now, badly, and nothing else will do.
    I dunno. I’ve extinguished fire successfully with a wet sugar bag.
    * The discipline of the gun helps to make me a better, more aware and more effective person.
    If you need a gun to be “disciplined” you have a problem.
    * Thomas Jefferson was also right when, in 1785, he advised his 15 year old nephew and ward:
    “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind.”
    Probably true in 1785. In 2014 not so much.
    * Shooting and being a part of the “gun culture” is uplifting and simply fun.
    I’ve never found the need. Surfing is healthier, safer and cheaper.
    * I recognize that I am the weapon; the handgun is simply a tool.
    Actually, the reverse is true.
    * Everyone that carries a handgun, without incident, every day, makes a stronger legal and political case for fully honouring the intent of the Founders and expanding Second American freedoms.
    Everyone that carries a handgun exhibits paranoia and cowardice.
    * The mark of civilization is not what a man or a people are willing to say about it, but what they are willing and able to do to defend it.
    The mark of civilization is the freedom to move about freely daily without fear. Shame you don’t have it in your country.
    * The battle for liberty never ends. I’ll do my part, symbolically, and if necessary, in fact.
    Me too – but I don’t need a gun for that.
    * Foremost, I am an American; I am a free man; it is my tradition and heritage.
    If you are an American with your anachronistic gun laws you are a slave to fear.
    *As an American, I do it for no reason other than I want to.
    That’s the kind of statement I’ve heard from your typical five year old. Most grow out of it. What other people want is important unless you’re a hermit.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Is everyone in Oz this full of fail?

      Actually, I am pretty sure not. I am sure a lot of your fellow Aussies would be ashamed to see such a huge steaming pile of illogic as this come from one of their own.

    2. avatar cmeat says:

      i scanned this for what it’s worth. sucks having your rights stripped away, huh? anyroad, here is what i took away from this tazmanian presbyte’s med induced stupor: the sugar bag became a fire extinguisher. and he should take up smoking again.
      now be a good bloke and “tell your story walking” as the cop said in motherless brooklyn.

  47. avatar 1735099 says:

    You gun wankers take yourselves far too seriously. You have no sense of humour. Get a life. – http://1735099.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/why-i-dont-carry-handgun.html

  48. I don’t know if it’s just me or if perhaps everybody else experiencing issues with your
    site. It seems like some of the text within your content are running off the
    screen. Can somebody else please provide feedback and let me know if this is
    happening to them too? This may be a issue with my internet browser because I’ve had this happen previously.
    Kudos

  49. If some one needs to be updated with newest technologies therefore he must be pay a visit this site
    and be up to date every day.

  50. avatar jenni morgan says:

    Bravo!!!! Well written….What a list!!!!

  51. avatar ruby Alex says:

    great written man welldone

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email