SECURITY

Why Good People Should Be Armed

why-good-people-should-be-armed

Many people understandably associate associate firearms with violence and bloodshed…because decent people don’t want violence and bloodshed.

Many instinctively dislike or fear firearms and support so-called gun control based on the assumption that outlawing firearms would mean reducing violence and bloodshed.

In reality this is not at all the case…


 
Saying I don’t want a firearm because I don’t want violence and bloodshed is no more rational than saying I don’t want an air bag (in my car) because I don’t want to crash. Of course the reason people want airbags is not because they’re eager to crash but because they understand that in the unfortunate event that they do get into a serious accident – having an air bag is very likely to reduce human pain and suffering.

And so it is with firearms… in the unfortunate event that violence does occur, good people being armed can dramatically reduce or eliminate human pain and suffering. Especially the pain and suffering of innocent people.

 
If you do not possess the means and the willingness to forcibly defend yourself and your family, that won’t magically stop the nasty people out there having the means and the willingness to victimize you.

Ask yourself this simple question… if someday you happen to be where an armed thug or deranged killer strikes, would the people there be better off with you armed…or with you unarmed?

Unfortunately the bad guys in the world aren’t nice enough to give advance warning of where or when they intend to attack. If such an event does occur, they’re not going to wait around for you to go and buy a gun so you can come back and stop them. You either prepare ahead of time or you won’t be prepared.

Do you put your seat-belt on only when you’re about to have an accident? Or is it better to wear it all the time…even if you don’t actually need it the vast majority of the time…

 
See and hear more from the video below, by “JOSIE the OUTLAW”…


Video link

Similar Posts

14 Comments

  1. I am all for honest,law abiding citizens having the right to be armed.And should they need to use a firearm in legitimate self-defense,not lose everything they own,including their freedom,defending themselves in court because some criminal who decided to attack caught a bullet.Unfortunately the laws here and in many places would NOT support legitimate self-defense use of firearms.

    1. This is the guideline to follow: “It is better to be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6.”

      Here are some rules: Never pull your weapon unless you are in the process of shooting it. Always shoot to kill. Two to the body, one to the head. Never let the enemy know you have a weapon, or anyone outside of your tribe. Don’t play with it. Don’t flash it. Don’t put it down out of reach. Always keep it fully loaded, always. Don’t use trigger locks, or any device which prevents instant use of the weapon. A shoulder carry is better than a hip carry.

      The Rules of Combat:

      1. Shut up.
      2. Look up.
      3. I said, “Shut up.”
      4. Dead bodies attract dead bodies.
      5. Listen. If you can’t shut up, I’ll cut you and leave you here to bleed out.

  2. My state doesn’t have a “castle” law either. That’s why anyone forcing their way in will be leaving in a body bag so they don’t get a second chance to screw me in court with a lawsuit.

  3. Alabama passed a law several months ago that lets all the law enforcement officers know without a doubt that Alabama is an open carry state.

  4. Florida is not open carry, but I routinely carry while on my own property and I do so for the little miscreants and reprobates in my area. I want them to see that I not only carry, but I do so defiantly and openly.

  5. It’s difficult for the postmodern sheep that make up the descendants of Humanity to comprehend natural law. They’ve been taught in a reinforcing way that being a human is about the acquisition of shiny toys.

    Our ancestors in America were different people. They had passed through the earliest struggles of philosophy and concepts of law and justice from the ancient Greeks on through to the Enlightment, and the greatest achievement of that period’s thinkers was natural law.

    Natural law states that certain rights are inherent simply by virtue of human reason. There are self-evident to a rational human being, not assigned by governments but by existence. Though folks may argue about the origin of natural law, the founders were mostly spiritual men who believed these natural laws originated by a Creator.

    The American founders believed that natural law superseded legal law. That concept is BOLD. Legal law originated from governments and imposed upon the people. Natural law comes from the people’s authority and empowers governments as their representatives.

    In the American thought of the founders of the Republic, natural laws possessed two qualities. They were inherent and inalienable.

    “”all men are born equally free,” and hold “certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity. “ George Mason

    Translation: no one and no government can remove your natural rights.

    “The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them. “ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

    Translation: you can’t lose your natural rights.

    Natural law formed the basis of all American concepts of liberty and formed the bedrock by which all people in America had power.

    Because words are never enough, when the Bill of Rights was created, it was self-evident that all men should posses the right to both arm themselves with weapons of diverse kinds (daggers, swords, pistols, and matchlocks), but also that they could “bear” them i.e. have them in their possession.

    While folks like to argue that the militia was not the people but the military, that’s complete rubbish to a historian. The militia was literally anyone who could be armed outside of organized government armies. There are clear differences in the word militia and the Continental Army all through the correspondence of the founding fathers. Such arguments to the contrary are absurd.

    Our founders knew that without an ability to possess arms and bear them, that repressive governments could once again impose monarchies or despotism. Since natural law was paramount, they were most ADAMANT about the Second Amendment, and in its pragmatic role to ensure natural law.

  6. The militia were considered lower tier troops from the common people that were utilized to bolster the ranks of the Continental Army. In American history, the militia was NEVER the standing army of the USA, and never has been the standing army, but has always been the last bastion of a free society by owning arms and being able to bear them in public.

    Some quotes to clear up a very old topic that every liberal seems to forget…a surprising one, for most liberals would be shocked to lose the First Amendment or to place limits upon that natural right, but then would place shackles upon the Second Amendment by insisting that it doesn’t apply today to all Americans.

    To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill … makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.

    GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to the President of Congress, Sep. 24, 1776

    “What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 Elbridge Gerry

    “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…” George Mason

    “The powers of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sward are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

    “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendment

  7. This subject cracks me up. You have decent people saying ‘guns kill people” and the next thing you hear is ” I was robbed at gun point”. If you don’t want to own a firearm for protection don’t gripe when your victimized by gangs that have weapons! Do you actually think that a criminal CARES about gun control? No they don’t because acquiring a firearm is easier than buying beer. They say ‘people armed is more likely to have a encounter with someone armed” than if your not armed. These people saying this are ignorant to the fact that that almost 100% of all gangs and criminals are armed and will use there weapons against you. I live in Georgia where you can shoot any intrude that comes onto your property. Now this law is a give and take as there are SOME shootings that were not warranted but it is the homeowners right to protect what they worked so hard for. If you don’t have a firearm to protect yourself and your family that is your choice, but when TSHTF you will be just another statistic.

  8. We have open carry here in Mississippi, but I carry concealed as a lot of establishments do not want customers who carry openly. As for criminals in possession of firearms, I feel that they should be given a longer prison term, if said firearm is used in the commission of a crime. Also if a convicted felon is found in possession of a firearm there should be a minimum term of incarceration of ten years, and if said firearm is used by the felon in the commission of a crime then that term should be no less than 20 years. be prepared and ready. Keep your powder dry.

    1. You can be a “convicted felon” for selling beer to your friends that you made legally in your own home using quality products and safe procedures. You can be a “convicted felon” driving too fast in some areas. You cab be a “convicted felon” for not paying taxes when all you’re trying to do is provide for your family. Your argument has holes in it. Not everyone who committed a crime is a hardened criminal, unworthy of future trust.

      1. Some misdemeanors can disqualify you from firearms ownership. I think this started with Clinton. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from owning a firearm after they have completed their sentence. We just no longer heve the guts to deal with violent criminals as we should. A large portion of the people incarcerated are there for drug offences. Funny that you can be jailed for years or decades for selling drugs when the government don’t get a cut of the money, but poisons like SSRIs are freely dispensed by Dr Quack in his practice (you’d think he would eventually get it right and stop practicing). How many lives have been ruined by alcohol abuse? The abusers are now thought of as victims.

  9. Andy – I don’t disagree with the fundamental point but why do you think it would make more sense to establish mandatory incarceration periods for possession?

    Also, a convicted felon *can* legally own and possess a firearm in a number of ways – owned it before arrest, or can purchase afterward incarceration in a number of states (restrictions are typically on handguns for non-violent offenders).

    My point is, we will not solve this with the universal “lock them up” mentality. If you want to complain about your high taxes and obtuse laws and still believe that is the best way forward that is all on you. Your taxes pay for that. I personally feel that we are not perfect, the spirit of the law was supposed to restore the rights after the sentence had been carried out. That means everything, and history shows we’ve chipped away at that till we’ve guaranteed a percentage of the population that will never vote, avoid any taxes they can yet still raise a family and likely own a firearm for protection.

    The US has more people locked up or in half-way houses or on probation than the total population of England. That’s 53 million people – check Wikipedia. We have 300 million people in the US right now (registered, born here or answered a survey). We have a problem and putting more people in jail isn’t going to help.

  10. There are Federal and State laws that allow previous convicted felons a chance to have their previous conviction expunged , but it does take 10years as a model citizen to apply for this relief , so as part of the punishment for the crime that has been committed a felon has to go through the system and follow the rules , as for a felon to have a weapon during this time Federal law does not allow it at all , though very few states allow a convicted felon to possess a firearm or even live in a residence that someone else possesses a firearm . What I am trying to relate is that most of the felons on the streets in possession of a firearm are more than likely going to use said firearm for furthering their criminal enterprise , so far that is what most law enforcement surveys have shown from collected evidence from law enforcement agencies . Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

Leave a Reply

>>COMMENT POLICY
>>OPEN FORUM for Off-Topic conversation

choose an alias name to comment

thanks for your comment...