One of the largest media outlets on this planet, the BBC, recently aired a piece about several “non-traditional” well-armed American self defense groups. They included Armed Equality, the non-partisan group I started.
The BBC tells me the piece was seen by over three hundred million human beings around the world. It will be translated into a number of languages and will air on television, radio, and online. I didn’t think I’d ever get anywhere remotely close to this level of exposure on these incredibly important topics when I started Armed Equality.
The fundamental human right to access the modern tools necessary for effective self defense are well beyond inalienable. There are billions of human beings on this planet who, through no fault of their own, live in regions where this right is denied to them by evil men… men with guns who deny access to those they subjugate.
Regardless of what specific criticisms we have about the final production of the piece, consider the undeniable amount of exposure we’ve gotten for gun rights. Consider the ripples that we have already made, and the ripples that we have yet to cause. From my vantage point these seeds have unquantifiable potential.
I know deep down in my bones that all humans yearn for liberty. I believe many don’t realize it, many are indoctrinated out of it, many are punished when it surfaces, but I believe that it’s always there.
The Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States really aren’t what truly matters. They are simply a modern incarnation and embodiment of what the American Founders knew was a preexisting fundamental human right required for the preservation of a free society. A free society made up of an almost infinite number of minorities, the smallest and most precious of which is the individual.
Prejudice, hate, bigotry, bullying, and ostracization cause devastating amounts of human suffering. I view this pain and anguish as the root cause of much true evil. I see it as the motivation behind the great horrors and tragedies we’ve seen in the past and continue to experience.
From tyrannical states disarming millions prior to holocausts to spree killers calmly executing children; evil exists in this world. The firearm is a tool. I find it doubtful that any technological invention before it has impacted human history in so many profound ways. Guns are the great and eternal force equalizer.
This tool in the hands of individuals causes governments to hesitate in their thirst for more power. This tool in the hands of a small woman facilitates hesitation and true equality between her and a potentially overpowering aggressor. This tool in the hands of an LGBT individual halts a self-loathing creature seeking satisfaction of their own misdirected pain.
Your right to exist and defend yourself against all threats is eternally inalienable. But that doesn’t mean you can’t be restricted or prevented from accessing it. This right should be exercised, protected, examined, and cherished. It’s the fulcrum upon which everything else we hold dear balances upon.
This is why I founded Armed Equality.
This is why I am willing to fight.
Piper Smith is the founder and director of Armed Equality. Armed Equality was founded in response to the Pulse Nightclub shooting, the deadliest terrorist attack and hate crime on American soil post 9/11.
Armed Equality National Discussion Group
Armed Equality SoCal Training Group
I agree. Very well written, thoughtful and no logical way to argue against the points. Unless you enjoy socialism, fascism or communism then this would be bad.
The more armed good folks the better. The more armed good folks, the more criminals will think twice. It’s a win even for those who choose to be (or are forbidden from being) disarmed.
“From tyrannical states disarming millions prior to holocausts to spree killers calmly executing children; evil exists in this world.”
This pretty much says it all. That thought was in the minds of our founders who clearly understood that a well armed citizenry is the first line of defense against tyranny. Whether its some government bureaucrat seeking to confiscate guns or a lone killer showing up at a small-town Baptist church, evil exists and has always existed in this world. Guns up.
Worth repeating!!!! Everyone pay attention.
“From tyrannical states disarming millions prior to holocausts to spree killers calmly executing children; evil exists in this world.”
“This pretty much says it all. ”
Uuuuhhhhh….no. These people do not have the same concept of “tyrannical” as POTG do. A republicrat president is a tyrant. A republicrat Senate is tyrannical. Any politician who opposes the bizarre agenda of the radical left is a tyrant.
“But that doesn’t mean you can’t be restricted or prevented from accessing it.” yes, great piece except for this one minor detail buried near the very end of his “pat me on the back” article. the constitution EXPRESSLY say otherwise. you know, that pesky little “…shall not be infringed.” part they put in there.
Regardless of affinity for the constitution, she is correct:
“But that doesn’t mean you can’t be restricted or prevented from accessing it.”
It is precisely what we are fighting. Her statement was not supporting restrictions, just noting that despite your constitutional right, limits/restrictions exist, and more coming every day.
Are we becoming snowflakes, constantly on the lookout for something to be offended about?
Yeah, it wasn’t ideal, but from my perspective, the portrayal wasn’t bad…
The words of my English teacher are resonating in my head. A “paradox” (an apparent contradiction) is presented to us towards the end of the article when the author says “Your right to exist and defend yourself against all threats is eternally inalienable. But that doesn’t mean you can’t be restricted or prevented from accessing it.”
Webster’s dictionary defines “inalienable” as “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”. When the author writes “But that doesn’t mean you can’t be restricted or prevented from accessing it” it places the control totally in the hands of a third party. Prevented from accessing it? It is my opinion that In the context of the article the right is not completely mine if it can be restricted from me? Why should I want to restrict it or have it prevented? So if it is restricted or prevented from me it is only possible by a third party forcing me to restrict it or prevent it. No thank you. I prefer inalienable.
I think that sentence should be seen as a rephrasing of something I often say — just because a right is routinely abridged doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
What she’s arguing is a theory of natural rights. She’s saying that the right of self-defense is not given or created by a government (state actor) — that it is inalienable and eternal — but that a state actor may try to impinge on the right or otherwise try to restrict it. Current attempts to impose magazine restrictions and red flag laws should be a testament to the willingness of the state to try to impair the right of self defense.
Accordingly, she says, it’s important to exercise and protect the right (to not become complacent). It’s not a paradox or contradiction if you believe in a theory of natural rights.
Great job Piper!
“she now carries a gun at all times”
*shows photo of a woman with an M1*
I guess she’s serious about stopping power with her EDC
The BBC is just like the networks here in the US. They’ll gladly tease the idea that she OCs her rifle at all times without openly saying so if it fits their chosen narrative.
I’d guess the M1 is a family heirloom being put back into service. It is hard for me to imagine a newbie gravitating to one otherwise.
Perhaps she was introduced by a shooting friend and found how easy it to shoot well.
It is a tremendous rifle.
CMP is an excellent source of M1s, and any active club will give either formal classes or informal coaching to newbies during a match.
I’ve never held an M1 but owned a few M1As. What’s different about their looks?
There’s several major differences between the M1 and the M1A. Firstly, the M1A is chambered in .308 whereas the M1 is .30-06 (traditionally). The M1A was updated with a detachable magazine, whereas the M1 has an internal 8-round magazine which is loaded with an en-bloc clip (the entire clip is inserted into the magazine). The gas cylinder on the M1 also extends the full length of the barrel because of the long-stroke gas system. Also the M1 is not fitted with a flash hider. There’s some other subtle differences, like in the stock, but mechanically they’re fairly similar.
M-1 Garand, full stock, flip up iron sight range marked in yards, twist locking bayonet pin, 30-06 only – in stripper clips.
M-1A abbreviated full stock ( forestock is two inches shorter), sight marked in meters, slide on bayonet nub, 7.62 NATO (.308) in box mag.
Otherwise, same rifle
Although you CAN get M1s from CMP that chamber 7.62 if that’s your bag.
GeorgiaBob, it is NOT a “stripper clip”, it is an “Enbloc clip”, BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
M1 does not have a flip-up rear sight. it is fixed, has azimuth (windage) and elevation and a peep hole on the rear sight.
My 1955 Springfield Armory M1 Garand, 30-06.
I don’t know what went wrong. I guess the keyboard buffer didn’t clear.
If there were ever a need for Google, you have perfectly demonstrated it.
@ Battery R cap…Google is not a friend, try another search engine. The POG are extremely upset (and rightly so) at Dick’s and then freely use “Goofle”, who make Dick’s look like minor leaguers in their anti-gun, anti-American fatwa.
If she was serious about stopping power it would be chambered in 6.5… oh never mind.
I was thinking the same thing…an M1 Garand for EDC?
Gee, I have two. Maybe one for each hip.😎
Gonna need a big duster to conceal those…
Saw that in an anime once, character whipped out two M1 garands with the butt stocks sawed off and duel wielded them. Stupid but intensely cool at the same time.
Thank you Ms Smith for your efforts on 2A issues. Awareness among everyone
regardless of their life style or preferences is way more important than any politics.
We’re all people no matter what and it is important that we are able to exercise ALL
of our inalienable rights. Thank you thank you thank you.
Correct: everyone has an inalienable right to life — which necessarily includes the inalienable right to effective self-defense — which necessarily includes the inalienable right to keep and bear the firearm of our own choosing.
Anyone’s approval or disapproval with respect to same-sex attraction has ZERO bearing on our inalienable right to life and to keep and bear arms to defend that life.
Well done, Piper ! Thank you for your work.
Great article. I got a kick out of the pictures of the guns because today I cleaned and lubed my Garand and my PC9.
Payin attention, CNN?
Please post, where do I go to jine up?F-K-A.
Armed Equality seems redundant but grow the 2A.
This was a very good piece for a BBC story. Having watch several others in the past about guns in america from a BBC perspective.
Having a Hispanic gun owner questioned the validity of a Klu Klux Klan Target used by a white transgendered person showed some introspective thinking that I didn’t expect to be presented on television.
Congratulations to everyone that participated and to you Piper Smith for a good for a job well done.
Congratulations for a job well done. I miss the edit button.
“Congratulations for a job well done. I miss the edit button.”
Are you seeing three small boxes below the “Website” block? If so, all three must be selected, every time, for the “Edit” function to appear. If you see the boxes, select all three every time, your browser configuration may need modification (or maybe your other security tools?)
I’ve only had to check the first box or the first two (can’t remember). I never have to click the third box for edit to work.
You end up on a TTAG spam list that apparently gets used by advertisers. I never get any notification of follow-up posts or replies but I sure as hell get a lot of spam from TTAG advertisers.
“I’ve only had to check the first box or the first two (can’t remember). I never have to click the third box for edit to work.”
Understand. “Edit” only appears for my comments if all three boxes are checked.
That’s an oddity, for sure.
I guess some people have to click all three and some only have to click the first two, or only the first one. I wonder if there are people that can get an edit function without clicking any of the boxes and if some don’t get the edit function when they click any combination.
“I wonder if there are people that can get an edit function without clicking any of the boxes and if some don’t get the edit function when they click any combination.”
Thinking it is all dependent on the device, and configuration of the device.
I check the first two boxes (Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. and Notify me of follow-up comments by email.) but not the third (Notify me of new posts by email.) because I already get any new posts by email.
I now get an edit function, but I will clarify that I use a desktop computer, and Firefox; those who use a phone or tablet may not get the edit function. I don’t have any actual verification (some might want to pipe up with such information), but some evidence, such as spelling errors that autocorrect might introduce, indicates that this might be true.
“I check the first two boxes…but not the third ”
It’s likely device and configuration dependent.
just consider it food for thought…
Nicely put. Thank you for using the term “spree killer”!
My only complaint is that the one lady said the government “gives” us the right. Definitely incorrect.
If they can regulate it, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
Proposed 25 September 1789
Ratified 15 December 1791
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Bill of Rights
I noticed that. She was incorrect.
Piper, while I like and agree with what you posted here on TTAG, I can’t say the same for the BBC piece. It was poorly done, biased, and ignored a great deal about firearms and owners thereof. I appreciate that they had to limit the time spent on this, but if their intent was to educate the world, they should at least have interviewed people across the country instead of just in CA, perhaps in a weekly series or something. I guarantee you that the people of MS (my home) or other gun friendly States, are not the same as the people in CA, NY, NJ, Mass, or other heavily regulated States. Here, when we say “Come and Take It”, we mean exactly that.
Apparently the BBC does not know that our gun laws vary widely, from “Permitless Carry whatever you want”, to “No, you can’t have a gun at all”. And guess where the most “gun violence” occurs. It ain’t MS.
In reality, the state of Mississippi has a very high violent crime rate compared to other states. Nice try; no cigar.
In reality their overall violent crime rate is lower than the US average and has been trending down since before the turn of the century.
Do you live here? I rather doubt it. Therefore, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
I see what you did there. The topic was “gun violence”, whatever that means. Now, you’re also conflating any violent crime, with or without firearms.
“Gun violence” includes suicides (~60%) as well as Defensive Gun Use (DGU) by both Law Enforcement and armed citizens (~20%). The remaining ~20% are Criminal Gun Use – which includes inner city gang-bangers.
Remove the inner city gang-bangers – from such gun-control nirvanas like Chicago, Detroit, Philly, NY, DC, Atlanta, and LA – and the USA criminal gun usage falls below that of Switzerland.
There’s only so much nuance you can pack into 5 minutes, for people to whom the ideas are utterly alien.
For the BBC, this was one of their better pieces on the subject.
More information on Armed Equality please.
Many people do not realize the primary purp[ose of the Second Amendment was not personal self-defense but protection from tyranny. See the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and what it calls transient reasons.
“Protection from tyranny” IS a form of self-defense….
You state this fact, as if self defense isn’t included in the 2A… SELF DEFENSE IS THE WHOLE REASON YOU WOULD WANT TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR COUNTRY FROM TYRANNY…. KINDA ALL ENCOMPASSING….
I agree, but the modern connotation of self-defense has defense against government tyranny bred out of it. You are correct but modern interpretation has it screwed up. It defies logic but there it is.
Great piece this is what the country needs to hear instead of the talking heads that dominate the media.
I like the the author took time to research this to get correct information for most part. On the other hand the Brits don’t really seem to appreciate why we believe so strongly. When’t their ancestors the ones that tried to take our guns. Also still waiting for them to return all those guns sent to them by American families, surrendering their hunting rifles and family heirlooms so they could defend themselves from the Germans. Oops, I forgot, they confiscated and destroyed all those guns after the war….
My ancestors are from Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Yes, indeed, The English Crown forbade us from having firearms. If you go to a Celtic Festival, you’ll see some rather odd “sports”, like tossing a bale of hay over a pole-vault bar, or a 16# (I think) weight, or my favorite – the caber toss. The Celts couldn’t train with actual military weapons or formations, so they used farm implements.
The first thing a Tyrant must do is disarm the citizens.
A pissed off Scotsman farmer with a pitch fork could be an English lord’s worst nightmare. I’m glad your ancestors made it out of there….
“I know deep down in my bones that all humans yearn for liberty.”
Wish this were as universally true as it is portrayed. It is a conceit of US (maybe generally Western?) liberal thought, that all the world yearns to be an American. Though my travels only include Puerto Rico, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, and “the Arizona”, the desire for individual liberty as we recognize it in this country is a very foreign concept.
Had the experience of working with an engineering company in Texas, where the chief engineer was a Russian immigrant (former naval officer). He came to the US, with his immediate family, and his brother and his family. Mikhail said his brother could stand only two years of personal liberty and freedom, returning to Russia permanently. The brother’s discomfort was “too many choices, and not knowing who to bribe”. Mikhail and I had interesting conversations when I told him my mission in the air force was to destroy his navy and everything else in the soviet union.
I, OTOH, believe that yearning for liberty is, indeed, universal.
But, some peoples’ idea of liberty differs from mine. Even those here in the US who actively work to restrict my liberty appear to want those liberties for themselves.
Examples: those who want to restrict school choices seem to want to send their children to non-public schools. Those who want to restrict my 2A choices seem to want to be protected by guns; indeed, I see a lot of those who want to take my guns get caught with guns themselves. Their idea of liberty is seemingly liberty for themselves, but not for those ‘under’ them (maybe ‘beneath’ them is a better way to put it).
Maybe Mikhail’s brother’s problem wasn’t with too much liberty, but instead the problem of not understanding that bribes aren’t supposed to be needed to exercise that liberty. He wanted it, but didn’t understand that here, in the US, he had that liberty without the need to pay for it.
“Too many choices…”? Yeah, I’ve met people like that. (I have that problem myself: too many guns available for purchase, not enough money.) A close friend spent a career in the USAF. Upon discharge, he had a minor breakdown; the new life of not having someone telling him how to live was too much. It happens. He adjusted with a little help. Liberty, after living in a restrictive climate, can become a personal problem.
Talking with all the folks I know from other places, especially socialist and former socialist countries, their initial reactions are what you would expect. Amazement and sheer delight is the usual feeling expressed, BUT, to a person, they all try to warn us that what’s happening now with all the fascination with the promises of socialism will be the downfall of what people come here for. Listen up folks!
“…BUT, to a person, they all try to warn us that what’s happening now with all the fascination with the promises of socialism will be the downfall of what people come here for. Listen up folks!”
The people you speak of came/come from nations where socialism was botched by rulers who were/are not as smart and innovative as we are. Simply put, socialism has never been correctly implemented, maintained and controlled.
Right now, in this country, we have the wealthiest and best educated generation (so-called “millennials”), anywhere in the world. Finally, socialism has a real chance of proving how much benefit and safety and security and fairness and compassion it has to offer. Time to bring about a society where everyone has enough, and no one has more than society thinks they need. A society where failure is impossible, hardship an aberration, a smooth road to a rewarding life of service, and not the bumpy highway of capitalism.
That was meant to be sarcasm, right? I can never tell, I sure hope so.
“That was meant to be sarcasm, right? I can never tell,..”
If you can’t believe that even the radical left would believe some statement I wrote, you have a big clue as to the sincerity.
Mikhail had his own adventures with America. Once I reminded him that he did not secure the button down collar on his shirt. He asked, “What are these buttons for?” Told him they were just another running dog capitalist trick to steal money from the proletariat, by pricing button-down shirts more than shirts without buttons. Mikhail never new if I was serious or not.
“I know deep down in my bones that all humans yearn for liberty. I believe many don’t realize it, many are indoctrinated out of it, many are punished when it surfaces, but I believe that it’s always there.
The Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States really aren’t what truly matters. They are simply a modern incarnation and embodiment of what the American Founders knew was a preexisting fundamental human right required for the preservation of a free society. A free society made up of an almost infinite number of minorities, the smallest and most precious of which is the individual.”
Well stated, Piper.
So it’s an LGBTQ gun rights group. They also mention Liberal Gun Owners.
Okay, it all works if it’s pro-Second Amendment.
Also, a ‘socialist’ pro gun group…
And if their political allies ever got full control of the government machine their gun group would be banned and they’d be tossed in the klink if they refused.
You can’t fix stupid.
“And if their political allies ever got full control of the government machine their gun group would be banned…”
Wouldn’t be necessary under the circumstances you describe; such groups would voluntarily surrender their firearms.
No…..but they would make sure you surrendered yours.
That’s how socialist jackboots roll.
They have an army of thugs to disarm those who would defend against an army of thugs.
Hitler would be proud.
The Liberal Gun Club. We are similar to, but not the same group as lgo. Many of us are members of both. http://www.theliberalgunclub.com
Great Article. I just don’t understand why anti-gunners want to disarm everyone. You don’t like guns; fine. I don’t agree with you; fine. You’re wanting to then take away all guns to satisfy your anti-gun lust is nothing short of a need/desire to control others and to do so in such a way as to punish anyone that disagrees with you. Are you listening Democrats? There is a reason why only one political party, almost to every single member, has a single minded, burning desire, to disarm all Americans no matter the cost!! So what is it? Cut through the crap of wanting to “protect” Americans. It is unabashed addiction to dictatorial power!!
You really don’t understand? It’s simple. If you own a gun, you are either a murderer or a potential murderer. You are a bad person. No “good” person would own a gun. If “we” forcefully take your guns away, you will no longer be a threat to “me.”. Owning a gun and joining the NRA are both “evil.”. The “good people” of the world will make the world a happier and better place when they eliminate guns and the NRA from the world. Then everyone will be good people.
” If you own a gun, you are either a murderer or a potential murderer.”
You nailed it. A person who wants a gun presents prime facie evidence that such person should not be allowed to own a gun. “Good people” fear the law-abiding gun owner, not criminals.
Are you FKN SERIOUS???? Coming here spouting your filthy mouth off like that…. Put a dick back in it and STFU
Have another run at the two comments. This time, read for understanding, not superficial pablum.
Agreed it was a good article for a BBC production at least. The problem is the English are obedient slaves. And American Socialist are acting as the overseers for the elected Deep State.
They can howl all they want.
The BBC doesn’t want to do any stories about guns used by civilians to defend themselves. There must be tremendous pressure in the UK now about an armed self defense debate in their country. They have had plenty of murder and mayhem in there country lately.
The internet can bring the Firearms Radio Network, or The Blackman With a Gun, or Student of The Gun, or any of the many more civil rights programs to people, outside the USA.
Some of these channels have download tracking from outside the United States, in the thousands. And I’m sure the BBC knows this too.
Bear in mind that the English are “subjects”. That’s it in a nutshell as far as the Brits are concerned.
I just don’t understand why anti-gunners want to disarm everyone.
You will disrupt the worship of the State.
Am I the only one who paused at “But that doesn’t mean you can’t be restricted or prevented from accessing it.”? WTH
What exactly does Shall Not Be Infringed mean? Serious question.
“What exactly does Shall Not Be Infringed mean? Serious question.”
Scalia explained that in “Heller”; Kavanaugh says restrictions are permissible if they are historic and traditional.
Kavanaugh is wrong about that.
“Kavanaugh is wrong about that.”
True, but he will follow precedent (Heller), and Heller is now part of history and tradition.
She should probably have said “But that doesn’t mean no one will try to restrict the right or take it from you.” At least that’s what I assumed (hoped) she meant.
“It will be translated into a number of languages ”
Hopefully pidgin is included.
We’d break the whole thing down into a couple paragraphs.
Embarrasing to see so many people on this board that think this is a positive portrayal of POTG.
Just step back and try to look through the eyes of an American that knows nothing about guns besides what the MFM has been pushing for the past 30+ years. So along with “far right crazies” now there is leftist crazies. THAT’S the message.
Here is some of the Leftist propaganda pushed in this drek.
“Hate crime significatly up in the past 3 years”.
“targeted minority group”
Psychosis that thinking there are KKK people all around
“Gender identity reporter”
BTW, the biggest lie about “increasing hate crime” is primarily due to the fact that news organizations have reduced their staffs and are outsourcing their “data” to outside political groups and the bogus “hate crime” data is coming from a 100% Soros backed group that was formed to create hate of Trump. It’s all F’n bullshit.
Gawd we’re such a stupid country.
Soros Bankrolled Unverified ‘Hate Crime’ Database Used by Major Media Outlets
Dont forget, the biggest reason ” hate” crimes are on the rise is because EVERYTHING is a hate crime now.
Well, not everything.
Some people just need killin’, yer Honor.
Case dismissed. You are free to go, Bubba. 🙂
You forgot: If they can do it, we can do it.
Antifa works on exactly that idea.
I was waiting for the obligatory “everything is a George Soros conspiracy” poster to show up.
“Prejudice, hate, bigotry, bullying, and ostracization cause devastating amounts of human suffering. I view this pain and anguish as the root cause of much true evil. I see it as the motivation behind the great horrors and tragedies we’ve seen in the past and continue to experience.” Piper, you have this backwards. Pain and anguish are not the root cause of true evil, rather evil is the cause of much pain and anguish. The Evil One is the force behind prejudice, hate, bigotry, bullying, and ostracization as well as greed, sociopathic behavior, and all of the spin that we see calling evil good and good evil. This spin includes blaming the instrument to steer attention away from user of the instrument.
Couldn’t agree more, Ms. Smith – let’s hope some of your points reached someone receptive.
anything concerning guns gets the soros bullshit artists in full cry. the baby-killers in the demoncrap party have given up on respect the nation and now support the communist left at all cost..they have the britts on their side by way of the muslim brotherhood that is running england now . the french are in the first steps of a civil war that will make the french revolution look like a boy-scout encampment. holland is lost , muslims have their no-go zones for dutch cops . and thanks to o’bummer the traitor, they are in position to do major dammage to america .when one sees fools like shift-for brains in leadership positions ,they aren’t far behind here. they have cortez the fool to keep the media occupied with her screw-ups .. we are not long for a real civil war..
A rise in hate crime HOAXES against minority groups has lead some to take up weapons for themselves.
Fixed that for you, BBC.
Good job, Piper, provided it doesn’t get you “Rushdie’d”
If 300 million people saw you talking about armed lesbians standing up to bigoted thugs, doesn’t that mean a few million members of the Religion Of Peace now want to kill you?
Great story! Piper, if any of your folks in North Texas need a helping hand or just want to try some different weapons, hit me up on Twitter. @coryintexas. I’d be glad to help anyone who is eager to get into shooting.
The damn BBC needs to stick to their own damn royalist business. Perhaps solving that pull out of the POS EU, their mohammandan invasion, the lack of a Constitution and individual freedom in the Once Great Britain.
“… the lack of a Constitution…”
This is something that irritates me. A constitution is no cure-all. Our constitution is unique in that it limits the government, while enshrining the rights of the people.
Most countries have constitutions. North Korea has one. Venezuela has one. A lot of good those do.
Piper Perri, cool, I knew she liked big gunms
Piper Smith. Talking about Piper Smith here.
Don’t get too excited now.
I thought the BBC piece was typically lightweight, sloppy and inadequate.
Nevertheless – kudos to Piper for her efforts 🙂
Uh, armed defense groups are *extremely* “traditional” in America, and most of the world for that matter.
Very cool piece, kudos to Piper.
Good work Piper.
In the world of Newspeak, “non-traditional gun owners” means “not white men.” Because white men = bad.
Bravo to you, M. Smith!
I like the piece. It is provocative. I’m not sure I personally would join such a group or be affiliated with them but I respect their POV. That said, it seems to me that it is more of a reaction to the right than a demonstration of self-rights. I guess I just don’t trust a network as influential as BBC. For all we know it could be the Bloomberg Broadcasting Company.
“I’m not sure I personally would join such a group or be affiliated with them but I respect their POV. That said, it seems to me that it is more of a reaction to the right than a demonstration of self-rights. ”
Agree. The members and affiliates fear “the right” will use guns to harm leftists and alt-genders. Remove the threat from “the right” (gun confiscation), and this group (and others) will surrender their firearms willingly. They are quite comfortable with the correctly indoctrinated government having a monopoly on guns.
The problem here is that the fact they are defensive gun owners is that they need protection from other defensive gun owners – nothing is further from the truth. Most gun owners are defensive gun owners, followed by those that need the firearm as a tool and those that train and/or do firearms sports. At the bottom of the list is criminals with firearms that use them offensively. We have laws about that, but sadly, these laws are not being used.
It’s realty it’s all about the right to self-defense…an alien concept in much of the world…
“We have laws about that, but sadly, these laws are not being used.”
While it’s true that the gun laws we have now are not being enforced, in the long run, it doesn’t matter.
Why? Because laws don’t do what far too many think they do.
Let’s say we enforce all the gun laws we have. Wait, let’s not qualify it: let’s enforce all the laws we have.
Will that stop crime?
If you think it will, you’re sadly misinformed.
Laws can not stop anything, including those things they are designed to stop.
An obvious example: we have laws that ban the unregulated use of certain drugs. We even spend Billion$ every year enforcing those laws. Do those laws actually stop that use of drugs? Obviously, no. Bans can’t work.
We can make all the laws we want to, but they do not work the way the legislators say they do. Banning certain guns doesn’t get rid of those guns (just ask New York about their SAFE act).
We need guns because those who do not follow the law have guns. We need guns to be on a par with those who would prey on us. There is no law that can change that. That’s why even the most ardent anti-gunners are protected by guns.
I can state without fear of being contradicted that checking all three boxes in the reply section does not get me an email notice that a reply has been made to my comments.
Other blogs manage to get this right. It just can’t be that hard.
I read the article and watched the BBC video and am of two minds about it.
On the one hand, I am completely supportive of the right of individuals to defend themselves. I was raised in one of the rare, gun owning Jewish households because my father believed that when we say “never again” we have the arms to back that up.
I have looked at your group’s Facebook page and Twitter account and agree with most of it.
On the other, one of the people featured in this BBC video is Faye Ecklar, who is a co-founder of the Socialist Rifle Association. She is a open supporter of Antifa.
The principles of socialism, the Democratic Socialist of America (which SRA seems to be associated with), and Antifa is aggressively more than just self defense oriented.
Antifa has engaged in acts of public violence. They have blocked traffic and beaten people. The they have protested (rioted is perhaps a better description) to block Conservatives from speaking publicly. Antfa threatened the Portland GOP which got the annual Parade of Roses shut down.
In addition I’ve witnessed the naked antisemitism of both the Socialists and Antifa, in support of BDS, Campus Israel Anti-Apartheid activities, and just cursing at Jews.
I am not able to square the circle of supporting gun rights as a tool of self defense and as a bulwark against tyranny, while at least some of the people associated with you are very much part of the group of oppressors that threaten me and justify my own gun ownership.
Frankly I don’t care that Ecklar is a trans-woman. I do care greatly that she wants to stamp the boot of socialism in my human face, forever. Yes, I’ve seen her group’s Twitter feed.
To put it bluntly:
Queers with guns? Great, I was a supporter of Operation Blazing Sword. Welcome to the club.
Socialists with guns? I’m going to stock up on more ammo because every alarm bell in my head is going off with “Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!!”
I understand that Constitutional rights are not partisan. She is entitled to the Second Amendment as much as I am.
At the same time, it’s hard if not impossible for me to support the gun rights of people who want those guns to use against me.
How do you do it?
Piper, THANK YOU for the work that you do. #LivesMatter, and for that to be true, liberty also and the right to defend both must be in the room. So much of the tone of our modern media is tainted with ignorance and indoctrination — so when they make an attempt, albeit imperfect, to reach us in understanding, I feel better at the end of the day. The comment I shared when I passed along the BBC production to my (stereo-typically American redneck) friends:
“Leave it to a British ‘rag’ (I never would have called them that 20 years ago) to label people ***who want to continue living*** as ‘least likely’ gun owners. It takes a lot of indoctrination to convince people that defending your life — and the lives of those you love… those you are responsible for… is simply wrong. But the #Left does it every day, and twice on Earth Day. There is no ‘minority segment’ that has to ‘reach’ for a reason to defend… you either wish to live, or you just don’t give a damn. I am constantly amazed at the numbers of humans who have been pushed down the psychological wet grass into believing that continuing to live is somehow an unfair slight against the fellow who is willing to murder you.”
“I am constantly amazed at the numbers of humans who have been pushed down the psychological wet grass into believing that continuing to live is somehow an unfair slight against the fellow who is willing to murder you.”
Quite simple, actually. Two wrongs don’t make a right. To push this further, just because one person is willing to murder you does not excuse your desire to murder the attacker. Taking a life without cover of lawful authority (coppers) is never justified. Self-defense cannot be permitted in a modern society because that allows the average person to act as a complete legal system, up to and including execution.
Can you now see how that works? Eventually, forks, spoons and table knives are prohibited because they incite a return to violence in the defense. You have a natural right to life, but only the properly constituted authorities approved by the state can enforce that right for you.
It is recommended that when faced with attack, you must vacate the scene, or face the consequences. Better to be an innocent victim than join the ranks of persons committing homicide. We simply cannot have people deciding these things for themselves. Otherwise they will begin to arrive at the conclusion that state authority is subject to the consent of the governed.
The reporter’s culture shock was noticeable.