Question Legislation
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:21
By
Mary Carpenter
---------------------
Mariposa California: the paternal grandmother of two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000 demands that we stop passing gun control laws that empower murderers.
The Mariposa Gazette is one of the oldest, continually-published newspapers in the US. The editor confirmed to me that the following letter appeared in the April 5, 2001 issue.
Harry Schneider, Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association
---------------------
I am writing to alert my fellow Mariposans to something going on at the state level that should be far more frightening to you than the so called "energy crisis." We must remember our legislators have a tendency to use such media hogging items to conceal their dirty legislation. SB52 and AB35 will require you to be fingerprinted, pay an unlimited fee, pass a written firearms law test, pass a shooting proficiency test, pass a hand gun handling demonstration exam, require notification of address change (just like a registered sex offender), pay fees that begin in the $40 to $50 range going as high as $100 or more, and comply with various loaning and transferring laws in order to own a handgun.
And what if you do not pass these tests?
I am the paternal grandmother of the two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000. Although there were sufficient guns in the house for my granddaughters to defend themselves and their siblings, because of my son's willingness to comply with California State law, two of his children are dead.
(Had the girls been able to get to the gun, by California law, my son would have been charged with a felony.)
If it had not been for my nine-year-old granddaughter's willingness to sacrifice her life for her siblings, four of them would be dead. The man who killed them was a stranger to the family and though not on drugs at the time, was a known drug abuser. He had recently been arrested for assaulting a police officer and was on parole because of jail overcrowding. (Yet they would have room for me should I fail my test and refuse to give them my gun.)
The killer had already violated his parole. The police knew his address. They knew where his mother and grandmother lived. He had mental records. His wife had reported that he had kidnapped her and held her at gunpoint in 1997. She had more recently reported he left threatening messages on her answering machine. Yet my son would have been in more trouble had his 14 or 13 year-old daughters been able to get to his gun. How safe will we be against these predators if they know we are not armed?
Please think about it, and call your legislators today.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Extinction
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." ~ Ronald Reagan
Constitutional law 101
Constitutional law 101: "Any talk of amending the Constitution is just wrong." --Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano responding to Republicans calling for changing the 14th Amendment to prevent automatic citizenship for anchor babies of illegal aliens (This is rich coming from this administration. Of course, they don't want to amend the Constitution; they just want to ignore it completely.)
Soldiers, or "Domestic Terrorists" ???
Well trained Soldiers, soon to be classified as "Domestic Terrorists" by the very Government they serve. Done for YOU and ME by your elected representatives -- be ashamed, be VERY ashamed....http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=219051&ESRC=army.nl
Disarmed -- Defenseless -- Dead: It's the Law
Richard W. Stevens
Editor, The Bill of Rights Sentinel, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
You be the judge. Does it make any sense for the government to:
1. issue a court order forbidding a woman's ex husband from having or being near firearms,
2. take no significant action concerning the ex-husband's frequent death threats against the woman,
3. require the woman to appear in court in an alimony/child support case against her ex-husband,
4. forbid the woman from possessing defensive sidearms inside the courthouse building,
5. fail to erect metal detectors or to check the ex-husband for firearms at the courthouse,
6. post no warnings about the lack of security in the courthouse,
7. fail to offer any added protection for the woman at the courthouse, and then
8. disclaim any responsibility for setting up the conditions that enabled the ex-husband to shoot the defenseless woman in cold blood, right in front of their young daughter, inside the courthouse?
Isn't it immoral or crazy to position an unarmed woman in a confined space with a man who has repeatedly and credibly threatened to kill her, and then fail to either check the man for weapons or to offer her added protection? The California Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Zelig v. County of Los Angeles says it's legally just fine. The Zelig Court proclaimed loudly and clearly:
"It is well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime."
"The public entities and their policymaking officers and employees are immune from liability for any failure on their part to provide sufficient police services."
No Duty, No Protection
Lawyers for the dead woman's estate argued strongly that the government owed legal duties and should be liable. The defendant county government had created a dangerous situation by compelling the woman to attend the courthouse, by forbidding the woman from carrying a defensive sidearm, and by failing to warn her that she was practically undefended there. The police had tape recordings and documents proving the ex-husband had issued the death threats, but they failed to offer extra protection for her. The superior court itself knew the ex-husband posed such danger that it formally ordered him to disarm himself, but the courthouse had no metal detectors and did not check the ex-husband for weapons.
The California Supreme Court addressed each of these arguments and rejected them all. The Second Amendment apparently wasn't asserted. Showing no sorrow or regret, the Zelig Court noted how "gun control" laws had disarmed the victim: "the state, by enacting a general statute prohibiting possession of a firearm in any courthouse, curtailed her ability to arm herself in self-defense." The woman had no civil right to self-defense, however.
Bottom line: the government can disarm you, knowingly put you in danger without even a warning, refuse and fail to protect you from the known danger ... and get off scot-free when the danger harms or kills you.
Readers of Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth would have fully expected the Zelig ruling to come down as it did. Citing laws and cases from every state, the book shows that the government generally owes no legal duty to protect citizens, and the courts routinely insulate the government from liability.
Worthless Laws
The Zelig case illustrates how "gun control" ideas endanger lives:
Fifteen day waiting period on sidearm purchases -- worthless.
Law forbidding civilians to possess firearms in courthouse -- only stopped the victim, not the perpetrator.
Court order that forbade ex-husband from possessing firearms -- didn't stop him when he wanted to kill.
Sign proclaiming law against civilian possession of firearms in courthouses -- advertised where defenseless victims could be found.
Law that immunizes government entities and officials if they fail to protect threatened citizens -- means government agents have less incentive to protect victims.
Concealed carry permit system that registers gun owners with the government -- worthless in courthouses that forbid all civilian firearms possession.
Zelig is only the latest court case proving that governments don't accept the responsibility for the harm caused by "gun control" laws that disarm the victims and empower the killers. Laws and court decisions in almost all states take the same route.
You can seize the opportunity to prove the dangerous evil of "gun control" ideas in all states by getting copies of Dial 911 and Die. For nearly every state and territory, there is a chapter in Dial 911 and Die that shows how the government makes no promise to protect individual citizens from criminal attack, even when the attacker is known and the threats are imminent. The anti-gunners cannot answer this argument... it's the law... and it makes civilian disarmament policies look both foolish and deadly.
Editor, The Bill of Rights Sentinel, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
You be the judge. Does it make any sense for the government to:
1. issue a court order forbidding a woman's ex husband from having or being near firearms,
2. take no significant action concerning the ex-husband's frequent death threats against the woman,
3. require the woman to appear in court in an alimony/child support case against her ex-husband,
4. forbid the woman from possessing defensive sidearms inside the courthouse building,
5. fail to erect metal detectors or to check the ex-husband for firearms at the courthouse,
6. post no warnings about the lack of security in the courthouse,
7. fail to offer any added protection for the woman at the courthouse, and then
8. disclaim any responsibility for setting up the conditions that enabled the ex-husband to shoot the defenseless woman in cold blood, right in front of their young daughter, inside the courthouse?
Isn't it immoral or crazy to position an unarmed woman in a confined space with a man who has repeatedly and credibly threatened to kill her, and then fail to either check the man for weapons or to offer her added protection? The California Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Zelig v. County of Los Angeles says it's legally just fine. The Zelig Court proclaimed loudly and clearly:
"It is well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime."
"The public entities and their policymaking officers and employees are immune from liability for any failure on their part to provide sufficient police services."
No Duty, No Protection
Lawyers for the dead woman's estate argued strongly that the government owed legal duties and should be liable. The defendant county government had created a dangerous situation by compelling the woman to attend the courthouse, by forbidding the woman from carrying a defensive sidearm, and by failing to warn her that she was practically undefended there. The police had tape recordings and documents proving the ex-husband had issued the death threats, but they failed to offer extra protection for her. The superior court itself knew the ex-husband posed such danger that it formally ordered him to disarm himself, but the courthouse had no metal detectors and did not check the ex-husband for weapons.
The California Supreme Court addressed each of these arguments and rejected them all. The Second Amendment apparently wasn't asserted. Showing no sorrow or regret, the Zelig Court noted how "gun control" laws had disarmed the victim: "the state, by enacting a general statute prohibiting possession of a firearm in any courthouse, curtailed her ability to arm herself in self-defense." The woman had no civil right to self-defense, however.
Bottom line: the government can disarm you, knowingly put you in danger without even a warning, refuse and fail to protect you from the known danger ... and get off scot-free when the danger harms or kills you.
Readers of Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth would have fully expected the Zelig ruling to come down as it did. Citing laws and cases from every state, the book shows that the government generally owes no legal duty to protect citizens, and the courts routinely insulate the government from liability.
Worthless Laws
The Zelig case illustrates how "gun control" ideas endanger lives:
Fifteen day waiting period on sidearm purchases -- worthless.
Law forbidding civilians to possess firearms in courthouse -- only stopped the victim, not the perpetrator.
Court order that forbade ex-husband from possessing firearms -- didn't stop him when he wanted to kill.
Sign proclaiming law against civilian possession of firearms in courthouses -- advertised where defenseless victims could be found.
Law that immunizes government entities and officials if they fail to protect threatened citizens -- means government agents have less incentive to protect victims.
Concealed carry permit system that registers gun owners with the government -- worthless in courthouses that forbid all civilian firearms possession.
Zelig is only the latest court case proving that governments don't accept the responsibility for the harm caused by "gun control" laws that disarm the victims and empower the killers. Laws and court decisions in almost all states take the same route.
You can seize the opportunity to prove the dangerous evil of "gun control" ideas in all states by getting copies of Dial 911 and Die. For nearly every state and territory, there is a chapter in Dial 911 and Die that shows how the government makes no promise to protect individual citizens from criminal attack, even when the attacker is known and the threats are imminent. The anti-gunners cannot answer this argument... it's the law... and it makes civilian disarmament policies look both foolish and deadly.
My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:45
By
Katherine von Tour
GOA Member
© 1999
Most people who support the Second Amendment have probably wondered at one time or another how to change the thinking of anti-gunners.
Since I was once a staunch gun-control proponent, including being a member of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) in the 1970's, but am today a fervent and virtually no-compromise Second Amendment supporter, perhaps the story of my mental shift will be of interest.
When I recall my mindset in the 1960's, when I was in college in Chicago, and in the early 1970's, when I was teaching grade-school in a private school in Pennsylvania, what I remember most is how completely convinced I was that government was the best and ultimate answer to all of society's ills -- war, poverty, crime and injustice.
I was a true Sixties liberal, who protested the Vietnam War, sported a "Question Authority" bumper sticker on my Volvo, who was a charter member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a charter subscriber to Ms Magazine.
I voted for George McGovern. I hung out with other earnest liberals, many of whom were also members of NOW. It wasn't that I believed government was perfect - far from it! - but I had blind faith that, with enough effort and money, it could be made so.
My idea of a perfect government was one which had a generous welfare program, free medical care for all, lots of benign and helpful social programs, and government-mandated fairness and equality for all.
I joined NOW because it promised to fight for equality under the law for women; it encouraged women to empower themselves, and to be independent. Since I was a single woman, these all sounded like a sensible ideas to me.
I joined HCI because it had convinced me that guns were a root cause of violence and crime, and that only criminals owned and used them.
The Liberal Years
I had grown up stationed with my family overseas, and had been sent to private boarding school in Honolulu, where my family is from, and then to Chatham Hall, a young ladies' "finishing school" in Virginia.
Most of my life had been protected and privileged; while my family didn't have a lot of money, we somehow gave the illusion that we did, since we lived overseas, complete with servants and first-class travel paid for by my father's company.
I had been raised, as my mother puts it, "to be a lady," and certainly "ladies" in our social circle weren't trained in self-defense, particularly self-defense involving firearms, which, in any case, were completely banned in the countries where we lived.
After graduating from Northwestern, and doing graduate work at Lehigh, I got a job teaching 6th grade at a private day school in Pennsylvania, where I stayed for 10 years, during which time I was an earnest and unwavering liberal.
It was during this time that I joined HCI and NOW, and crusaded loudly and vociferously against "violence," "intolerance" and "unfairness."
The "Bubble" Bursts
After ten years of teaching, I was still making very little money, and had burned out. I decided to move back to Hawaii, which was my home, and where my parents had retired after 25 years of being stationed overseas, and purchase a franchise of a skin-care and cosmetic business, whose products were sold through home shows.
I spent five ghastly years in Honolulu, struggling to run a business in a government climate which was as socialistic and larded with welfare and social programs as any I had previously worked towards; those five years were the undoing of my liberalism.
I tried in vain to recruit women who were on welfare to work to do home shows and make money by being independent, but I could in no way compete with the obscenely generous welfare benefits they were receiving for staying home and doing nothing, except in many cases growing pakalolo, (marijuana) which they had plenty of time to do, since all of their needs were more than being met by the state.
The Hawaii State Labor board delivered the final death blow to my business by declaring that all of the independent contractors who worked for my company - and whom I could hardly convince to work at all - were to be classified as "employees," and that I had to pay unemployment, workers' compensation and health care for them.
The government cared not a whit that there was no money in my company to fund this state-mandated largess. I was forced to close down the business, to file bankruptcy, and I moved back to the Mainland, my formerly liberal tail between my legs, a newly-hatched libertarian conservative.
I no longer saw government as the solution to social problems. It certainly hadn't solved mine, nor had it encouraged my trying to create jobs for the people of Hawaii, jobs which they didn't want to do because it was too much work, even though the Honolulu Star Bulletin was filled almost every week with whining letters from people complaining that there were no jobs to be had, and imploring the government to "create" more jobs.
With the fervor and passion I had previously reserved for trying to get the government to expand its powers and programs, I began to read the writings of conservative and libertarian authors -- Bastiat, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and others. I also plunged into the writings of the founders of America - Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine, George Mason.
I started meeting people who had also been abused by government agencies - the police, Customs, DEA, IRS and others. I started hearing stories of people having property seized without due process, and of people calling 911 and not having the police not show up in time.
But the pivotal turning point for me was the Los Angeles riots.
Armed in L.A.; guns save lives
I was living in Orange County at the time, but had to go up to LA regularly on business. At that time there had been a rash of violent car-jackings, many of them committed against women who were driving alone.
A friend, who knew a great deal about guns and had grown up around them, told me that, because I was a woman living and driving alone, he wanted me to start carrying a pistol in my car.
He lent me a .38 Special, and showed me how to load, unload and fire it.
One day, just before the riots exploded, I was driving in downtown LA in a scary part of town. It was dusk. As I was stopped at a stop-light, with one car in front of me, two men who had been watching me began quickly and menacingly approaching my car from the sidewalk. One of them was carrying a tire iron.
I grabbed the pistol, which I had laid on the seat beside me, and held it up so they could see it.
The look in their eyes changed in an instant from threatening to fearful, and they immediately turned around and ran in the opposite direction. The light changed. I drove away.
No one was hurt, but a gun in my formerly liberal hand had, I believe, probably saved my life, or at least prevented me from likely injury.
L.A. Riots turn anti-gun advocates into pro-gun supporters
Within a week, the very street where this incident happened had erupted in rioting, looting and killing.
I watched on television as the Korean grocers defended their property with AK-47's and AR-15's, and thus prevented it from being torched and looted. The police couldn't stop the violence and killing.
I had friends who worked in the garment district in LA who barely made it out alive, and who told tales of pulling out pistols and having would-be attackers turn tail and run away.
Guns were saving lives and property.
As the riots threatened to spill over into Beverly Hills, myriad Hollywood types stormed gun stores to arm themselves, only to be told that there was a 15-day waiting period; radio talk shows boiled with people calling in and screaming about how unfair this was, and how the law was leaving them helpless.
Some of them even admitted that they had previously supported the waiting period, and that they were now furious that it had left them unarmed.
Coming full circle: From HCI to GOA
My transformation was complete. I joined the National Rifle Association (I didn't know about Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership yet) and started reading their literature. I bought and read "Armed and Female" by Paxton Quigley - another ex-gun-control woman.
I fell in love with and married the friend who had lent me the .38 Special, and started learning in earnest about guns and how to use them. We joined GOA and JPFO.
And the National Organization for Women? Here's the thing that makes me crazy about an organization ostensibly dedicated to the empowerment of women - NOW is uncompromisingly and adamantly anti-gun, including urging all women to disarm themselves, and supporting legislation to force their disarmament.
The incongruity and hypocrisy of this stance is simply stunning. How can such an organization claim to be "for women?" In my experience as a single woman, there is nothing more effective than a gun for protection.
In my experience as a married woman, when my husband can't be there to pull out a firearm to protect us and our home, he has made sure that I can do so. What could be more empowering and independent and equalizing for a woman than that?
And what could be more threatening to women than women like Sarah Brady, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and Barbra Streisand who, while beating the drum for "women's rights" are attempting to disarm women as well as men, and leave them at the mercy of criminals? I still believe fervently in the original NOW position supporting the empowerment of women.
And I believe that the most effective thing any woman can do to empower herself is to acquire and learn to use a gun, and to become vocal and aggressive in defending gun rights and the Second Amendment.
When I look back on my mindset when I supported gun control, I see that I was naïve, idealistic and swayed by irrational, baseless propaganda, especially the absurd myth that, by disarming law-abiding citizens, society will be made safer.
There is absolutely no hard evidence to support this. Criminals by definition disregard laws, especially gun control laws. In Australia, which has disarmed its population, it is reported that violent home invasions have increased in some areas by 44%. Rapes and murders have also increased substantially.
In being confronted by the reality that government cannot and will not guarantee my personal safety, I am infinitely thankful, both as a woman and an American, that the Bill of Rights still guarantees my right to defend myself with a gun. Any true feminist must support this position. Any woman who claims to be a feminist, but who supports disarmament of law-abiding citizens is simply a dangerous hypocrite.
Katherine von Tour is presently working on a book comprised of interviews of women who support the Second Amendment; she is looking for women who have personal stories about having used a gun for self-defense, or who simply believe in the right to own and use a firearm. Anyone wishing to be interviewed for this project can contact her through GOA.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:45
By
Katherine von Tour
GOA Member
© 1999
Most people who support the Second Amendment have probably wondered at one time or another how to change the thinking of anti-gunners.
Since I was once a staunch gun-control proponent, including being a member of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) in the 1970's, but am today a fervent and virtually no-compromise Second Amendment supporter, perhaps the story of my mental shift will be of interest.
When I recall my mindset in the 1960's, when I was in college in Chicago, and in the early 1970's, when I was teaching grade-school in a private school in Pennsylvania, what I remember most is how completely convinced I was that government was the best and ultimate answer to all of society's ills -- war, poverty, crime and injustice.
I was a true Sixties liberal, who protested the Vietnam War, sported a "Question Authority" bumper sticker on my Volvo, who was a charter member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a charter subscriber to Ms Magazine.
I voted for George McGovern. I hung out with other earnest liberals, many of whom were also members of NOW. It wasn't that I believed government was perfect - far from it! - but I had blind faith that, with enough effort and money, it could be made so.
My idea of a perfect government was one which had a generous welfare program, free medical care for all, lots of benign and helpful social programs, and government-mandated fairness and equality for all.
I joined NOW because it promised to fight for equality under the law for women; it encouraged women to empower themselves, and to be independent. Since I was a single woman, these all sounded like a sensible ideas to me.
I joined HCI because it had convinced me that guns were a root cause of violence and crime, and that only criminals owned and used them.
The Liberal Years
I had grown up stationed with my family overseas, and had been sent to private boarding school in Honolulu, where my family is from, and then to Chatham Hall, a young ladies' "finishing school" in Virginia.
Most of my life had been protected and privileged; while my family didn't have a lot of money, we somehow gave the illusion that we did, since we lived overseas, complete with servants and first-class travel paid for by my father's company.
I had been raised, as my mother puts it, "to be a lady," and certainly "ladies" in our social circle weren't trained in self-defense, particularly self-defense involving firearms, which, in any case, were completely banned in the countries where we lived.
After graduating from Northwestern, and doing graduate work at Lehigh, I got a job teaching 6th grade at a private day school in Pennsylvania, where I stayed for 10 years, during which time I was an earnest and unwavering liberal.
It was during this time that I joined HCI and NOW, and crusaded loudly and vociferously against "violence," "intolerance" and "unfairness."
The "Bubble" Bursts
After ten years of teaching, I was still making very little money, and had burned out. I decided to move back to Hawaii, which was my home, and where my parents had retired after 25 years of being stationed overseas, and purchase a franchise of a skin-care and cosmetic business, whose products were sold through home shows.
I spent five ghastly years in Honolulu, struggling to run a business in a government climate which was as socialistic and larded with welfare and social programs as any I had previously worked towards; those five years were the undoing of my liberalism.
I tried in vain to recruit women who were on welfare to work to do home shows and make money by being independent, but I could in no way compete with the obscenely generous welfare benefits they were receiving for staying home and doing nothing, except in many cases growing pakalolo, (marijuana) which they had plenty of time to do, since all of their needs were more than being met by the state.
The Hawaii State Labor board delivered the final death blow to my business by declaring that all of the independent contractors who worked for my company - and whom I could hardly convince to work at all - were to be classified as "employees," and that I had to pay unemployment, workers' compensation and health care for them.
The government cared not a whit that there was no money in my company to fund this state-mandated largess. I was forced to close down the business, to file bankruptcy, and I moved back to the Mainland, my formerly liberal tail between my legs, a newly-hatched libertarian conservative.
I no longer saw government as the solution to social problems. It certainly hadn't solved mine, nor had it encouraged my trying to create jobs for the people of Hawaii, jobs which they didn't want to do because it was too much work, even though the Honolulu Star Bulletin was filled almost every week with whining letters from people complaining that there were no jobs to be had, and imploring the government to "create" more jobs.
With the fervor and passion I had previously reserved for trying to get the government to expand its powers and programs, I began to read the writings of conservative and libertarian authors -- Bastiat, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and others. I also plunged into the writings of the founders of America - Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine, George Mason.
I started meeting people who had also been abused by government agencies - the police, Customs, DEA, IRS and others. I started hearing stories of people having property seized without due process, and of people calling 911 and not having the police not show up in time.
But the pivotal turning point for me was the Los Angeles riots.
Armed in L.A.; guns save lives
I was living in Orange County at the time, but had to go up to LA regularly on business. At that time there had been a rash of violent car-jackings, many of them committed against women who were driving alone.
A friend, who knew a great deal about guns and had grown up around them, told me that, because I was a woman living and driving alone, he wanted me to start carrying a pistol in my car.
He lent me a .38 Special, and showed me how to load, unload and fire it.
One day, just before the riots exploded, I was driving in downtown LA in a scary part of town. It was dusk. As I was stopped at a stop-light, with one car in front of me, two men who had been watching me began quickly and menacingly approaching my car from the sidewalk. One of them was carrying a tire iron.
I grabbed the pistol, which I had laid on the seat beside me, and held it up so they could see it.
The look in their eyes changed in an instant from threatening to fearful, and they immediately turned around and ran in the opposite direction. The light changed. I drove away.
No one was hurt, but a gun in my formerly liberal hand had, I believe, probably saved my life, or at least prevented me from likely injury.
L.A. Riots turn anti-gun advocates into pro-gun supporters
Within a week, the very street where this incident happened had erupted in rioting, looting and killing.
I watched on television as the Korean grocers defended their property with AK-47's and AR-15's, and thus prevented it from being torched and looted. The police couldn't stop the violence and killing.
I had friends who worked in the garment district in LA who barely made it out alive, and who told tales of pulling out pistols and having would-be attackers turn tail and run away.
Guns were saving lives and property.
As the riots threatened to spill over into Beverly Hills, myriad Hollywood types stormed gun stores to arm themselves, only to be told that there was a 15-day waiting period; radio talk shows boiled with people calling in and screaming about how unfair this was, and how the law was leaving them helpless.
Some of them even admitted that they had previously supported the waiting period, and that they were now furious that it had left them unarmed.
Coming full circle: From HCI to GOA
My transformation was complete. I joined the National Rifle Association (I didn't know about Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership yet) and started reading their literature. I bought and read "Armed and Female" by Paxton Quigley - another ex-gun-control woman.
I fell in love with and married the friend who had lent me the .38 Special, and started learning in earnest about guns and how to use them. We joined GOA and JPFO.
And the National Organization for Women? Here's the thing that makes me crazy about an organization ostensibly dedicated to the empowerment of women - NOW is uncompromisingly and adamantly anti-gun, including urging all women to disarm themselves, and supporting legislation to force their disarmament.
The incongruity and hypocrisy of this stance is simply stunning. How can such an organization claim to be "for women?" In my experience as a single woman, there is nothing more effective than a gun for protection.
In my experience as a married woman, when my husband can't be there to pull out a firearm to protect us and our home, he has made sure that I can do so. What could be more empowering and independent and equalizing for a woman than that?
And what could be more threatening to women than women like Sarah Brady, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and Barbra Streisand who, while beating the drum for "women's rights" are attempting to disarm women as well as men, and leave them at the mercy of criminals? I still believe fervently in the original NOW position supporting the empowerment of women.
And I believe that the most effective thing any woman can do to empower herself is to acquire and learn to use a gun, and to become vocal and aggressive in defending gun rights and the Second Amendment.
When I look back on my mindset when I supported gun control, I see that I was naïve, idealistic and swayed by irrational, baseless propaganda, especially the absurd myth that, by disarming law-abiding citizens, society will be made safer.
There is absolutely no hard evidence to support this. Criminals by definition disregard laws, especially gun control laws. In Australia, which has disarmed its population, it is reported that violent home invasions have increased in some areas by 44%. Rapes and murders have also increased substantially.
In being confronted by the reality that government cannot and will not guarantee my personal safety, I am infinitely thankful, both as a woman and an American, that the Bill of Rights still guarantees my right to defend myself with a gun. Any true feminist must support this position. Any woman who claims to be a feminist, but who supports disarmament of law-abiding citizens is simply a dangerous hypocrite.
Katherine von Tour is presently working on a book comprised of interviews of women who support the Second Amendment; she is looking for women who have personal stories about having used a gun for self-defense, or who simply believe in the right to own and use a firearm. Anyone wishing to be interviewed for this project can contact her through GOA.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Women, Stop Watching Oprah and Learn to Love Guns
Written by Karen De Coster
Thursday, 07 May 2009 00:00
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." ~ Ted Nugent
Women never cease to amaze me. The majority of them are still "afraid" of guns. Afraid, as in "oohhhh, they are so scary." They say things like "I don’t like them around" and "they’re dangerous." I know of women who have defense-minded, pro-gun husbands and they will not let their guy talk about those nasty things in their presence. Shhh, the children will hear, or, they might actually see an evil gun! Keep them locked away. Don’t tell the neighbors you have a gun in our house, or we’ll be outcasts. And in the background you can almost hear another feeble Oprah sermon keeping women stupid, but oh, they feel good about themselves and their newfound self-esteem.
All the time, women are shocked, shocked! to hear that I have a gun, and worse, I have several guns. And then, oh no, I actually carry one with me. That’s so odd, they think. Oh she’s different. Why more than one gun? She must be the aggressive type. After all, the Oprah way is to trust everyone and insist that all people have good intentions always.
Although I tend to think that most women don’t make sense, period, I especially believe this concerning the gun issue. It’s not only difficult to get women to come around to wanting a gun of their own, but they still can’t get to the point where they will understand and accept why others want to own them.
Let’s face it – women are more vulnerable to attack because, most likely, their aggressor will be a man. Women are physically weaker, and criminals know that we are less willing to be mentally prepared for aggression because, unlike men, most of us just aren’t wired to be combative. A woman’s attacker will be bigger, stronger, and faster than her, and by nature they will be more aggressive, and that’s before considering any mental or drug problem that may be associated with a criminal attack. So why do women not want to take that into consideration and equalize the situation by learning to use and love guns? Dr. Thomas Szasz, libertarian scholar and Professor of Psychiatry at Syracuse University, once stated, "self-defense is not merely our legal right but our moral duty; because women are more vulnerable than men, their need and obligation to defend themselves is even greater than that of men." Dr. Szasz is a wise man.
Here’s my favorite scene: a woman is walking in a parking garage or parking lot, all alone, wearing 3-inch skinny heels, head down, flicking her mane of endless hair, and chatting mindlessly on the phone. "Blah, blah, blah, blah, and blah," but not a single shred of awareness about the inherent dangers of time and place, who is around her, and what they are doing. She is a Bambi in the woods.
I witness this kind of thing all the time. Women tend to function in the fog of the unknown, making themselves easy targets. The first rule of self-defense is awareness. Situational awareness can, and will, save your life. Be conscious about your surroundings. Stay off the phone, keep your head up, and survey the area around you. Walk boldly. You do not want to give a potential attacker the impression that you are an easy target. Avoidance is the ideal. How many times do women think about this? Probably never. But then again, this is not meant to be a self-defense, how-to guide for women, but rather, a call to women to stand up and take control of their personal security. Women who have the habit of entering the mindless, no-think zone while consistently ignoring potential threats are ripe for something awful to happen. Remember, criminals who attack women frequently scrutinize potential prey for easy pickings. They don’t want to tangle with a woman who appears to be alert or tough as nails. They are looking for women who are unaware, unassertive, and fragile.
Women tend to take a white-picket-fence-and-rose view of the world more often than they should. They think that the world is made of gingerbread houses and buckets of goodwill just waiting to be poured upon them. They believe that when evil takes place, it happens anywhere but in their own backyard. It happens on the evening news, but not to them.
One reason that women need to get over their hostility to guns is because the current environment – economic depression, looming inflation, and widespread unemployment – will bring forth a new criminal class due to desperation. In addition, the established criminal class will ramp up their activity. Carjackings, home invasions, robberies, abductions, and rape will plague women in hard economic times.
So how do we get women to dig guns?
Many women will experience frustration if you keep stressing guns as a method of self-defense and get right to the point of mentally preparing to kill someone to save a life. They may not be ready to "go there" if they are already hostile to guns. Ease ’em on in with things to break down their intolerance.
Most women are introduced to guns at the range, or perhaps by just shootin’ stuff on private property somewhere out in the country. Husbands, fathers, brothers – they all make good first-time instructors because they are trusted by the first-time female shooter. Starting out with the smaller guns is less intimidating and therefore works in favor of a woman gaining confidence about her ability.
Women do tend to be frightened by larger guns. They’ll come right out and say it. I recently added a new carry choice – the Ruger LCP .380, a 9.5 ounce pocketful of reliable defense that is very slim and easy to conceal for us smaller ladies, especially when wearing summer clothing. I have found out that ladies new to guns are attracted to this thing because of its size and non-threatening appearance. But watch out! This gun has some temperamental recoil, especially when loaded with high-velocity ammo. However, once women learn to shoot the smaller caliber pistols and rifles and grow their confidence, they get a hankering to shoot the bigger guns, and it becomes a thrilling experience. Knowing that they can handle a .308 rifle or a .45 pistol tends to bring on miles of smiles.
One thing about guns that should appeal to women is their artistic quality. Guns are beautiful works of art. Not only are guns attractively manufactured, but also, modern design and engineering methods make gun ownership for women a real option. There are guns for small hands, small trigger fingers, and even pink guns. You can buy little, pink rifles for young girls who are just starting to shoot. You can laugh, but this may invite young girls to aspire to guns whereas they might not find another reason to be attracted to them.
One thing I notice that people at gun shops tend to do is to steer women toward revolvers as the "best choice." Because revolvers are thought to be simpler and it requires less practice to load and shoot them, women are steered toward them, oftentimes without being given other workable options. A .38 revolver is considered to be the handgun for beginners. Though it is a great gun, this assumption is wrong and it is a risky attitude to take with a female customer whose life may depend on her ability to learn to master her gun. In fact, a lightweight .38 revolver can have some big recoil, especially in smaller, weaker hands. But mostly, a lady should never be swayed from looking at a semi-auto such as a 9mm or .40, or even a .45. Instead, gun shop salespeople should stress the pros and cons between the two, and then impress upon a female newbie that the semi-auto requires more training time but offers many advantages. Every woman has different needs and her options should be fairly presented so she can make an informed decision that best suits her requirements in the long term. Boston T. Party, in his superb book, Boston’s Gun Bible, states in his chapter on women and guns, "I would only recommend a revolver if you do not have the extra time and/or money for a quality semi-auto."
In fact, instead of slapping a revolver in her hand, it should be stressed to a woman purchasing her first gun that she needs guidance beyond her very basic CPL (Concealed Pistol License) class – she must move well beyond the basics and acquire additional training. A woman who buys a pistol must take supplementary courses such as a concealed weapons course and at least one defensive pistol class. This will educate her on the use of her gun in varied circumstances and will foster an extraordinary level of confidence. Only when you really learn to master that firearm do you come to appreciate and love it. Until that happens, a woman will be wary, lack confidence, and will reject the firearm more often than she covets it.
I came to love guns early on. My Dad started me off shooting a Winchester rifle at seven years old. I was fortunate that my entire childhood meant spending the whole summer, each year, at our cottage in Northern Michigan, out in the sticks, thirteen miles removed from the nearest small town. We had a gravel pit nearby where we shot targets, cans, and other objects. Once I learned that guns had a purpose, and that they could be handled safely and skillfully, I fell in love with them and wanted my own. I saw a similar occurrence last month while I was down in rural Tennessee. I watched a ten-year-old girl shooting a Ruger Mark III 22/45, her face plastered with endless smiles each time that little peashooter popped and knocked down another soda bottle. She reminded me so much of myself at that age when, after unloading a full magazine she’d turn to the group and say, "Can I do that again?" Of course, "again" is never-ending because of the sheer joy experienced while learning real world skills from a trusted adult.
In talking to different women, along with firearms instructors, I find that one of the biggest obstacles for women in actively carrying a pistol is getting to the point where they believe they can take another human life in defense of their own life or the life of a loved one. Indeed, this involves some serious reflection prior to ever carrying a gun or having one in the home for purposes of self-defense. I’ve had CPL instructors tell me about women breaking down and crying upon discussion of this topic during their courses. However, women need to understand the value of their lives, and the lives of their children, and how life can be so easily snuffed out by one person – or a group of people – who harbor a cruel and vicious, criminal agenda. It is essential that a woman train to develop a mindset where she can take another human life where and when her life is in immediate danger from an assailant (or assailants). That can take time, and quite often, that mindset will develop with further training and a better understanding of how to handle the dangers she may confront.
Viewing the world through fuzzy-lined Oprah glasses just won’t suffice anymore. Women need to stop living the dumbed-down life that is being sold to them by daytime TV and brainless magazines and novels. They need to stop pretending that every incident in life can be coped with by invoking yet another worthless fluff statement that exclaims, for the twenty-fifth time, how "happy" and non-judgmental and politically correct they are.
Being hapless and clueless is not a virtue, no matter what your chromosome factor. To steal a few words from Ted Nugent, a pull-no-punches advocate of self-defense rights, a person who accepts defenselessness is unnatural, cowardly, and pathetic. Ladies, boycott that mentality by turning Oprah off and giving guns, and your life, a chance.
Karen DeCoster is an accounting/finance professional and writer. She rides a Harley, shoots lots of guns, doesn't watch Oprah or Dr. Phil, and has never read a romance novel or self-help psychobabble. She likes to grow vegetables, ride mountain bikes, use her power washer, do cross-fit, and try new wines under $15. She looks forward to the "Stars with Cellulite" editions of the National Enquirer. Please do not forward her emails plastered with little smiley faces and frivolous poems that end in, "Have a Great Day!" This is her LewRockwell.com archive and her Mises.org archive. Check out her website, along with her blog.
Thursday, 07 May 2009 00:00
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." ~ Ted Nugent
Women never cease to amaze me. The majority of them are still "afraid" of guns. Afraid, as in "oohhhh, they are so scary." They say things like "I don’t like them around" and "they’re dangerous." I know of women who have defense-minded, pro-gun husbands and they will not let their guy talk about those nasty things in their presence. Shhh, the children will hear, or, they might actually see an evil gun! Keep them locked away. Don’t tell the neighbors you have a gun in our house, or we’ll be outcasts. And in the background you can almost hear another feeble Oprah sermon keeping women stupid, but oh, they feel good about themselves and their newfound self-esteem.
All the time, women are shocked, shocked! to hear that I have a gun, and worse, I have several guns. And then, oh no, I actually carry one with me. That’s so odd, they think. Oh she’s different. Why more than one gun? She must be the aggressive type. After all, the Oprah way is to trust everyone and insist that all people have good intentions always.
Although I tend to think that most women don’t make sense, period, I especially believe this concerning the gun issue. It’s not only difficult to get women to come around to wanting a gun of their own, but they still can’t get to the point where they will understand and accept why others want to own them.
Let’s face it – women are more vulnerable to attack because, most likely, their aggressor will be a man. Women are physically weaker, and criminals know that we are less willing to be mentally prepared for aggression because, unlike men, most of us just aren’t wired to be combative. A woman’s attacker will be bigger, stronger, and faster than her, and by nature they will be more aggressive, and that’s before considering any mental or drug problem that may be associated with a criminal attack. So why do women not want to take that into consideration and equalize the situation by learning to use and love guns? Dr. Thomas Szasz, libertarian scholar and Professor of Psychiatry at Syracuse University, once stated, "self-defense is not merely our legal right but our moral duty; because women are more vulnerable than men, their need and obligation to defend themselves is even greater than that of men." Dr. Szasz is a wise man.
Here’s my favorite scene: a woman is walking in a parking garage or parking lot, all alone, wearing 3-inch skinny heels, head down, flicking her mane of endless hair, and chatting mindlessly on the phone. "Blah, blah, blah, blah, and blah," but not a single shred of awareness about the inherent dangers of time and place, who is around her, and what they are doing. She is a Bambi in the woods.
I witness this kind of thing all the time. Women tend to function in the fog of the unknown, making themselves easy targets. The first rule of self-defense is awareness. Situational awareness can, and will, save your life. Be conscious about your surroundings. Stay off the phone, keep your head up, and survey the area around you. Walk boldly. You do not want to give a potential attacker the impression that you are an easy target. Avoidance is the ideal. How many times do women think about this? Probably never. But then again, this is not meant to be a self-defense, how-to guide for women, but rather, a call to women to stand up and take control of their personal security. Women who have the habit of entering the mindless, no-think zone while consistently ignoring potential threats are ripe for something awful to happen. Remember, criminals who attack women frequently scrutinize potential prey for easy pickings. They don’t want to tangle with a woman who appears to be alert or tough as nails. They are looking for women who are unaware, unassertive, and fragile.
Women tend to take a white-picket-fence-and-rose view of the world more often than they should. They think that the world is made of gingerbread houses and buckets of goodwill just waiting to be poured upon them. They believe that when evil takes place, it happens anywhere but in their own backyard. It happens on the evening news, but not to them.
One reason that women need to get over their hostility to guns is because the current environment – economic depression, looming inflation, and widespread unemployment – will bring forth a new criminal class due to desperation. In addition, the established criminal class will ramp up their activity. Carjackings, home invasions, robberies, abductions, and rape will plague women in hard economic times.
So how do we get women to dig guns?
Many women will experience frustration if you keep stressing guns as a method of self-defense and get right to the point of mentally preparing to kill someone to save a life. They may not be ready to "go there" if they are already hostile to guns. Ease ’em on in with things to break down their intolerance.
Most women are introduced to guns at the range, or perhaps by just shootin’ stuff on private property somewhere out in the country. Husbands, fathers, brothers – they all make good first-time instructors because they are trusted by the first-time female shooter. Starting out with the smaller guns is less intimidating and therefore works in favor of a woman gaining confidence about her ability.
Women do tend to be frightened by larger guns. They’ll come right out and say it. I recently added a new carry choice – the Ruger LCP .380, a 9.5 ounce pocketful of reliable defense that is very slim and easy to conceal for us smaller ladies, especially when wearing summer clothing. I have found out that ladies new to guns are attracted to this thing because of its size and non-threatening appearance. But watch out! This gun has some temperamental recoil, especially when loaded with high-velocity ammo. However, once women learn to shoot the smaller caliber pistols and rifles and grow their confidence, they get a hankering to shoot the bigger guns, and it becomes a thrilling experience. Knowing that they can handle a .308 rifle or a .45 pistol tends to bring on miles of smiles.
One thing about guns that should appeal to women is their artistic quality. Guns are beautiful works of art. Not only are guns attractively manufactured, but also, modern design and engineering methods make gun ownership for women a real option. There are guns for small hands, small trigger fingers, and even pink guns. You can buy little, pink rifles for young girls who are just starting to shoot. You can laugh, but this may invite young girls to aspire to guns whereas they might not find another reason to be attracted to them.
One thing I notice that people at gun shops tend to do is to steer women toward revolvers as the "best choice." Because revolvers are thought to be simpler and it requires less practice to load and shoot them, women are steered toward them, oftentimes without being given other workable options. A .38 revolver is considered to be the handgun for beginners. Though it is a great gun, this assumption is wrong and it is a risky attitude to take with a female customer whose life may depend on her ability to learn to master her gun. In fact, a lightweight .38 revolver can have some big recoil, especially in smaller, weaker hands. But mostly, a lady should never be swayed from looking at a semi-auto such as a 9mm or .40, or even a .45. Instead, gun shop salespeople should stress the pros and cons between the two, and then impress upon a female newbie that the semi-auto requires more training time but offers many advantages. Every woman has different needs and her options should be fairly presented so she can make an informed decision that best suits her requirements in the long term. Boston T. Party, in his superb book, Boston’s Gun Bible, states in his chapter on women and guns, "I would only recommend a revolver if you do not have the extra time and/or money for a quality semi-auto."
In fact, instead of slapping a revolver in her hand, it should be stressed to a woman purchasing her first gun that she needs guidance beyond her very basic CPL (Concealed Pistol License) class – she must move well beyond the basics and acquire additional training. A woman who buys a pistol must take supplementary courses such as a concealed weapons course and at least one defensive pistol class. This will educate her on the use of her gun in varied circumstances and will foster an extraordinary level of confidence. Only when you really learn to master that firearm do you come to appreciate and love it. Until that happens, a woman will be wary, lack confidence, and will reject the firearm more often than she covets it.
I came to love guns early on. My Dad started me off shooting a Winchester rifle at seven years old. I was fortunate that my entire childhood meant spending the whole summer, each year, at our cottage in Northern Michigan, out in the sticks, thirteen miles removed from the nearest small town. We had a gravel pit nearby where we shot targets, cans, and other objects. Once I learned that guns had a purpose, and that they could be handled safely and skillfully, I fell in love with them and wanted my own. I saw a similar occurrence last month while I was down in rural Tennessee. I watched a ten-year-old girl shooting a Ruger Mark III 22/45, her face plastered with endless smiles each time that little peashooter popped and knocked down another soda bottle. She reminded me so much of myself at that age when, after unloading a full magazine she’d turn to the group and say, "Can I do that again?" Of course, "again" is never-ending because of the sheer joy experienced while learning real world skills from a trusted adult.
In talking to different women, along with firearms instructors, I find that one of the biggest obstacles for women in actively carrying a pistol is getting to the point where they believe they can take another human life in defense of their own life or the life of a loved one. Indeed, this involves some serious reflection prior to ever carrying a gun or having one in the home for purposes of self-defense. I’ve had CPL instructors tell me about women breaking down and crying upon discussion of this topic during their courses. However, women need to understand the value of their lives, and the lives of their children, and how life can be so easily snuffed out by one person – or a group of people – who harbor a cruel and vicious, criminal agenda. It is essential that a woman train to develop a mindset where she can take another human life where and when her life is in immediate danger from an assailant (or assailants). That can take time, and quite often, that mindset will develop with further training and a better understanding of how to handle the dangers she may confront.
Viewing the world through fuzzy-lined Oprah glasses just won’t suffice anymore. Women need to stop living the dumbed-down life that is being sold to them by daytime TV and brainless magazines and novels. They need to stop pretending that every incident in life can be coped with by invoking yet another worthless fluff statement that exclaims, for the twenty-fifth time, how "happy" and non-judgmental and politically correct they are.
Being hapless and clueless is not a virtue, no matter what your chromosome factor. To steal a few words from Ted Nugent, a pull-no-punches advocate of self-defense rights, a person who accepts defenselessness is unnatural, cowardly, and pathetic. Ladies, boycott that mentality by turning Oprah off and giving guns, and your life, a chance.
Karen DeCoster is an accounting/finance professional and writer. She rides a Harley, shoots lots of guns, doesn't watch Oprah or Dr. Phil, and has never read a romance novel or self-help psychobabble. She likes to grow vegetables, ride mountain bikes, use her power washer, do cross-fit, and try new wines under $15. She looks forward to the "Stars with Cellulite" editions of the National Enquirer. Please do not forward her emails plastered with little smiley faces and frivolous poems that end in, "Have a Great Day!" This is her LewRockwell.com archive and her Mises.org archive. Check out her website, along with her blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)