Protection

From PreparingYou
Jump to: navigation, search
The protection of an individual by the government is on condition of his submission to the laws of the lawmakers who rule over the people. When the government is charged with the totality of protection of the people who will protect the people from the government? The protection from want offered by the welfare state will eventually subject you like merchandise.

Protection Subjection

"Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection."[1]

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

It is the responsibility of the individuals of society to protect themselves and their neighbors. They are endowed with that right by God and all rights are responsibilities. The right to bear arms for centuries meant the responsibility to protect your community at your own expense and risk.

To allow or desire to disarm society is to war against God.

"To Conquer a Nation, First Disarm its Citizens" Adolph Hitler 1933[2]

There is no greater enemy of the people than those who wish to disarm them. And there is no greater alley in that evil endeavor and effort than the avarice and apathy of the people themselves.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England.", Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court & U.S. Dist. Court of Virginia

  • Turkey established its gun control laws in 1911, utilizing them to arrest and exterminate some 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1917.
  • The Soviet Union prohibited citizen gun ownership in 1929 which in turn contributed to somewhere between 20 and 62 millions citizen “dissidents” being rounded up, imprisoned and exterminated.
  • In 1938, the Nazi Party implemented strict gun control enabling them to collect and exterminate millions and million of people including women and children between 1939 and 1945.
  • In 1935 China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese. Many scholars agree that about one million people were murdered during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Yet, the Chinese government stated, “Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.” The current Chinese government, the communist People’s Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million often unarmed people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.
  • After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazi forces utilized pre-war gun registration lists to both confiscate firearms and arrest their owners. Thereafter they were free to round up the Jews for the Warsaw Ghetto and ship them off to concentration camps.
  • Gun control laws introduced in 1956 allowed Cambodia police and military forces to arrest around 21 million professionals and intellectuals and exterminate them.
  • In 1964 Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
  • In 1970 Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Governments with guns kill far more people than criminals and loan gunman.

Thomas Jefferson, after observing during the drafting of the Virginia Constitution that "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms” (1776) later asserted in correspondence to John Cartwright (1824) that “"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria, went on to say, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

James Madison, though best remembered for asserting in 1792 that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country,” also observed that (1788) “The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms ... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”

Patriot Richard Henry Lee - renowned for calling for the independence of the colonies during the Second Continental Congress - is also remembered for warning that (1788) "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”

The United States President George Washington made the timeless observation (1790) that "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." - George Washington in the address to the 2nd session of United States Congress.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"For the first time in history does a nation have complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead in the future." - Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag

If you want your rights back you have to take your responsibilities back first.

Gun free zones are saying that in this area you do not have the right to defend yourself and others. Some people would like to make the whole nation a gun free zone but that would lead to disaster. Unarmed and Dangerous.

The Draft

How many rights other than delegated powers were reserved to the people?

The simple answer is "All of them."

Were citizens freemen or subjects?

"If the Militia was every able-bodied citizen then what happens when a citizen doesn't want to join your Militia?"

Nothing.

That is called freedom.

We know that is hard for people to wrap their heads around especially since they know very little about real freedom an what it takes to obtain and maintain that freedom.

You can only maintain rights, e.g. the right to chose or liberty, by exercising the correlative responsibilities connected to them. If we do not share the responsibility of freedom can we maintain or even claim a right to it?

  • "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."- Richard Henry Lee

No one should be compelled to come to his neighbor's aid when he needs assistance, yet he must be deprived of the means to do so. Without the practice of social virtue, the safety of society is diminished. Like the Amish, if you do not help when someone's house is burned down no one has to come and help you.

For centuries people formed local voluntary militias where there were no statutes or even kings and rulers.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment[3], “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it”.[4]


  • "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the [federal] United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the sovereign people] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." Supreme Court Justice Field

There were a few attempts to draft men into military service during the War for Independence, the war of 1812 and the Civil War but these usurpations were often met with fierce resistance.

Daniel Webster stated in an address to the House in 1814:

  • "The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion...Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not...Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?"

Today, “in the United States ‘it [citizenship] is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign.”[5]

We see today that any private person can bring an action in court for violations of the constitution as it's done every single day.

"Persons" are "members" and members may be "subject". Americans were not a party to the creation of the United States nor its constitution. Neither could a small group of men subject an entire nation to the whims of Congress with the stroke of a pen.

If you actually have a right to bear arms as a natural individual then you have a right to maintain rights by exercising the power of the sword with the lawful authority which you were endowed with by God. Before statutes there was law. Lawful rights are natural rights not connected to the administration of government. Legal rights are rights which can be regulated by statutes.

Since the militia has always been every able-bodied man in order to have a well-regulated militia it is essential that every able-bodied man also arm himself. It would seem that it is not only his right but his responsibility to himself, his family and his fellowman.


Delegation

The right to defend life is a right delegated by nature and natures God.

  • "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

There is simply put nothing in the Constitution of the United States to delegate authority to the government to regulate the ownership of arms.

  • "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

By mere definition the militia being everyman it should be clear that the better armed any government force may be, whether foreign or domestic the right of the people to be armed shall be magnified not restricted nor diminished.

  • "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

Certainly, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunters or sport-shooters and everything to do with that natural right of defense. That defense of the community may include the rise of tyranny, the abuse of power, or foreign invasion[6] but more commonly the need to protect and the threat of harm is felt more dearly every day from lawless and malevolent elements of society itself. Until governments can guarantee the safety of every law-abiding citizen or benevolent member of society any attempt to restrict the right to defend life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness could hold the individual members of the legislatures morally and financially responsible for any damage or injury which may result.

  • "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century Cesare Beccaria), criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician, who is widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. 1774-1776

It is well known that "The best defense is a good offense" and the best deterrent to needing to defend yourself and your community is the ability to implement that offense by being armed and prepared. A well-armed society can be the best encouragement for honesty and respect among its members.

In a free society, the virtue of its members coupled with the means of protecting one another is the greatest guarantee of security and safety.



  • "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


But the question begs to be asked are citizens of the United States still free?

Have they become entangled again in the elements of the world selling their access to the exercise of rights because of their appetite for benefits and the wages of unrighteousness.

There are many situations where unpaid voluntary militias formed without legislatures but you won't learn about them much in public school. The militia was not only for the defense of community but they also were found building roads, laboring at public projects, and even constructing schools.

The so-called "mandate in the constitution under art 1 sec 8 cl 16" concerning militias is for the State militia. Unfortunately, the federal government can draft most people into the army now because the relationship of the people has changed from a free and independent people to one based on contract and dependence where your natural rights are no longer intact.

Many did not think the constitution was a good idea and most Americans opposed it for the same reasons. Early Americans did a lot of things the modern American does not know about nor understand. http://preparingyou.com/wiki/Not_a_party.


It was through the "covetous practices" of the people that they became little more than human resources and subjects.

As subjects, you can now bring an action in court for violations of the constitutional "legal rights" because you know longer have access to your lawful or natural rights. This has come about because you thought it was okay to live at the expense of your neighbor. You imagine that it is okay to force your neighbor to fight for you, serve you, provide you with benefits like free education, social security and probably even healthcare. Those "covetous practices" are at home in the mind of many Americans and people of the world today even though they were forbidden by Moses and by Christ. Even Polybius said:

"The masses continue with an appetite for benefits and the habit of receiving them by way of a rule of force and violence. The people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others... institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch." Polybius saw the downfall of the republic a 150 years before the first Emperor of Rome and 175 years before the birth of Jesus Christ and John the Baptist.

http://preparingyou.com/wiki/Covetous_practices

Chapter 3. of the book The Covenants of the gods
Citizenship vs Citizenship
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/gods/cog3cvc.php
Audio http://keysofthekingdom.info/COG-03.mp3
Citizen vs Citizen from the book "The Covenants of the gods"
Citizens of the world and in the world?
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/bklt/citizen.pdf


The kingdom of God is in the moment and our guide is the Holy Spirit. We draw near that HOLY spirit through sacrifice of "self". So when we say we have a right to self defense we do not mean the egotistical "self" but only the self that serves others in righteousness.
The more you are filled with the Holy Spirit the less you will have to draw your sword.
A sword on the side of the righteous keeps the swords of the unrighteous in their sheath.

Self Defense

DO CHRISTIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE?

Part 1, 11-7-09
Do Christians Have a Right to Self Defense
Part 2, 11-22-09
Do Christians Have a Right to Self Defense
Part 3, 12-5-09
Do Christians Have a Right to Self Defense
Part 4, 1-2-10
Do Christians Have a Right to Self Defense

This series of article which appeared at News With Views after I read a Chuck Baldwin article on the same subject has been used for some time in a private run police academy in Florida as a part of their training courses. I was amazed when they approached me for permission to incorporate it in their curriculum.

There are two spirits working or warring in America today, even in the whole world. One is of the light and liberty and righteousness of the Kingdom of God the other is of darkness coveting and seeking the tyranny of Hell to bite and devour one another.

If God did not want people to use carnal weapons you would see that prohibition clearly stated over and over again as a precept in scripture. There is simply no evidence of such a prohibition. Not only did Jesus say to his disciples to obtain a carnal weapon and carry it along with their purse but when Peter used it to protect Jesus he was not told to get rid of it but "Put up thy sword into the sheath" because Jesus knew that the cup which His Father hath given Him he was willing to drink.

But the blood of the innocent or the weak who may die at the carnage of the mad mass murderers of the world is on the hands of the slothful man or coward who so often out of a false sense of self-righteousness refuse to arm themselves wisely as Christ told His disciples.[7].

If men will not wisely stand and defend others with the means that are within their reach are they good men? The man who refuses through his sloth, neglect or cowardness to arm himself to protect the innocent is as guilty of murderer and violence as the evil and wicked.

There is no greater power than the Holy Spirit but we have no right to tempt God by misplaced or arrogant claims to faith. Carnal weapons are only a tool for good or evil but to refuse to touch the tool because of a self-righteousness interpretation of scripture is refusing to accept a responsibility and the right granted by God and directed by Jesus.

While some will try to argue against an armed Christian asking where did Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, or even Origen advocate violence? But why would anyone suggest that using a tool to stop violence is violence? The truth is to fail to restrain a wild beast or a bull that pushes by any means within your power is violence by neglect and you can be held accountable as if you were the beast yourself.

A Christian is nonviolent. You seem to think that having a gun is violent. It is not any more violent than having a hammer which kills a lot of people. A gun is a tool like your hand. Even using it to stop a beast or crazed man is not violence.

It is strengthening the beast by not having the adequate tools at your disposal to stop evil when you could have... that is violence by neglect. That is why he said be armed to his disciples. It is common sense.

  • "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century Cesare Beccaria), criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician, who is widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. 1774-1776.

To say you love your neighbor and refuse to be prepared to come to his defense from a crazed beast or the demonically possessed by whatever means at your disposal is the definition of "dishonest hypocrisy" and by its nature apathetic violence.


It is fundamental to do what we can to protect our neighbor from unwarranted harm.

I have faced mobs and murders without a gun but I would never take away the right of people to use a little leverage. And neither did Christ. As far as Christ's doctrines are concerned if he didn't say it it isn't his doctrines but he did tell his disciples "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one". To use an imagined doctrine to justify personal apathy is "mental gymnastics "

We are supposed to believe in Jesus not Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, or even Origen, who did not contradict Jesus' statement to his disciples to be armed. How could those disciples as servants turn around and suggest a doctrine that Jesus never instituted that would disarm the people in free assemblies. And while certainly, those men did not recommend salvation through insurrection against even the semi-legitimate governments of the world but neither did they say or command the people disarm and let every thug, murder, robber, and rapist or rampaging beast violate your community.

Thugs and Beasts

Someone who read these News With Views articles conjectured that I actually never answered the very question I raised.

He attempted to summarize the articles with maybe a hint of sarcasm:

"Christians have the right to defend themselves, their family and their neighbor using whatever force is necessary against thugs bent on doing them ill. That is unless the thug represents the government, in which case they should take their copy of Black's Law Dictionary to the nearest law library, study the countless laws they've subjected themselves to determine what is permissible in the situation they encountered. Of course such an endeavor should only be undertaken with the guidance and discernment provided by the Holy Spirit as few mortals would actually be able to fully comprehend what they're reading without divine guidance. After completing such a course of study one would know what the morally correct thing they should have done all those decades ago."

Well I thought I would make a feeble attempt at a summary avoiding the step by step in depth look that may have encouraged the teachers at the police academy to approach me for the use of these articles. Maybe this will allow me to answer the question as to who is the real thug. Who resulted to force first? After all according to Mark Passio it is the one who through the first blow that is critical in deciding who is really the thug.

Summary

UNC Interview: Part 6: Capital Punishment and Self Defense] ~2 min

The question is answered in the first article which clearly states you not only have a right but a responsibility and, even an obligation to defend yourself and others.

The rest of the articles show you why you are loosing your right to obtain the means to meet this natural obligation because you will not gather together as one body bound in Faith , Hope and Charity by way of Freewill offerings of the people, for the people and by the people through the Perfect law of liberty in Free Assemblies. Instead you bind yourselves together by contracts with Benefactors who exercise authority one over the other including over your neighbor. This desire for benefits at the expense of your neighbor alters society makes you merchandise, curses children and it is all because your application to eat at the table of rulers is a snare and a trap.

People fail to defend themselves and their neighbor from destitution through accidents, by unforeseen poverty and disease etc. Because people pray to government for social security, Medicare and Medicaid and other social and health benefits and care. Their provisions are of the Nimrods of the World who are taking on your responsibilities and are licensed by you to take from you and of course all your neighbors and thereby obtain a right to regulate your life.

You want to take from the rich because he is rich and it is your own possessions and rights which are forfeited. Your desire for One purse has captured you in a net of your own making. When you cry out because of your oppression you will not be heard by God.

Like the father who says if you live under my roof and eat at my table you go by my rules.

This is undoubtedly why Jesus said Call no man Father

What was Christ trying to tell us about fathers on the earth?
http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/fatherabba.php


This is why article 4 states clearly, "While the State of Montana has recently made an attempt to protect individual rights by enacting state provisions, few understand that individual rights require individual responsibility. Gun rights advocates wait to see what the Federal reaction will be. The difficulty the Federal government faces will remain, as always, how will they maintain the delusion that US citizens still enjoy natural God given rights as free people, while continuing to regulate such rights as the privilege they have become?"

The liberal label is for those people who believe in the right to choose except your right to choose to not pay for their abortion, or free education or healthcare. They actually do not believe in the right to choose at all and the gun advocate has already decided that it is okay to force their neighbor to pay for government services ( Health, Education and Welfare) at the point of the government's gun. They have chosen, given consent, to take away the right of their neighbor to choose and have lost their own right to choose.

Americans have already proved themselves violent thugs and predators and unworthy of firearms when they through Covetous Practices apply for benefits from men who call themselves Benefactors but who exercise authority. So I continued to write "Americans have failed to retain those rights by failing to recognize the consequences of applications for and acceptance of benefits, along with pervasive participation in social schemes dependent upon mutual surety and debt as seen in Pharaoh's Egypt, Nimrod's Babylon, Caesar's Rome, or Herod's Judea."

And then finish with "If you will not take back the responsibility to govern yourselves, to care and protect one another, to live by faith with hope through charity under the Perfect law of liberty which is love, and the duty of every Christian and God loving man, then you are probably to irresponsible to own a gun without being regulated by one government or another."

Americans have become comfortable with the idea of taking a bite out of one another. They have become little benefit beasties. Bound together by contract they all have the Mark of the Beast and have created a Beast by their Covetous Practices that goes about devouring who it wills.

Assault vs Assault

EXCLUSIVE: Texas Massacre Hero, Stephen Willeford, an NRA instructor with his AR-15 stopped the shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Describes Stopping Gunman on Louder With Crowder. An exclusive interview with Stephen Willeford, the hero who ended the killing spree in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Stephen recounts the actions that lead him to confronting Devin Patrick Kelley outside First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. Time 37:50

The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but generally falls into one of these categories. Cornell Law School:

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Intent to cause physical injury is not required, and physical injury does not need to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.
2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.
3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.

Apprehension v. Fear

In this context, "apprehension" does not mean "fear." Rather, to experience apprehension, the victim must believe that the tortfeasor's conduct will result in imminent harmful or offensive contact unless it is somehow otherwise prevented. It isn't necessary that the victim believes the conduct will be effective in making such contact, only that he believes the conduct is capable of making such contact.


Definition of assault Merriam Webster

1 a : a violent physical or verbal attack
b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces an assault on the enemy's air base
c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary) an assault on drug trafficking
2 law
a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension (see apprehension 1) of such harm or contact — compare battery


The difference between assault and defense is the intent of the individual. There are millions of these rifles in America and almost all of them are not assault rifles but they are for defense. If you will not defend others you should not expect others to defend them.

Download Recording

Download Recording


An "assault weapons" is a politically inflammatory term used to demonize semi-automatic guns. An “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. ... AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” nor “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

AR-15s accounted for 14.4 percent of all rifles manufactured in 2007. If that proportion held true in 2016, then more than 610,000 AR-15s were produced and distributed in the U.S. that year alone. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading clip fed rifles make up at least 3,000,000 guns while some estimates go to 10,000,000 or more.

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year US rates 12th

Firearm-related homicides rate per 100,000 population per year US rates 17th

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Most shootings in America are gang related or are in Gun free zones. Gun free zones kill people. Most people who use guns like automobile are done safely by good people. There is no logic in taking cars away from sober people because some people drive drunk.

Teachers that wish to arm themselves and can pass basic safety tests and gun courses should be allowed to bring their gun to work from the janitor to the principle with school approval if they are employed.

The right to self-defense is also the right to defend others. When you are in a gun free zone the only thing you can do is hide or run. When the whole country is a gun free zone there will not be any place to run to or hide.

The possibility of even few regular employees being armed and not just a guy with a uniform will begin to reduce deaths and probably shootings. We saw in Israel as an absolute success.

If 10% of the teachers and school employees desired to conceal carry that would be almost a half a million people in the schools capable of stopping a shooter or stabber.

That is not the only thing you can do but that is one of the quickest and cheapest way to make a difference. Just the possibility of armed resistance will stop even insane attempts to do harm. We know that mass shooters have chosen their targets because they were not likely to have anyone there to stop them.

Then there is also the fact that almost everyone who does commit mass murders of the kind we have seen at schools and in other gun free zones have been taking mind-altering drugs.

Millions of people own guns and hurt no one. In fact men like Stephen Willeford have confronted shooters with his own personal AR15.

Other hero's names disappear while the modern news media publishes the name of the murders over and over again. People who at the risk of their own lives and with the use of their own firearm confront and stop the carnage go unpraised because the truth that arms in the hands of good people is the greatest deterrent of crime does not fit the media agenda.

People like Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, James Strand, Tracy Bridges, Mikael Gross, Jeanne Assam, Donald J. Moore, Carolyn Gudger, Aaron Guyton, Nick Meli, Jonathan Baer, Clint Lund, Dr. Lee Silverman, Kenneth Hammond, Lisa Castellano and many other unnamed heroes who with their own firearms saved lives.



Sheriff Robinson stated “The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school.” That deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school who with an unarmed school security officer and two administrators ran from the cafeteria to the library. The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff,” Robinson said. "We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life."




If a man is about to kill a thousand people with a bomb and the only way to stop him is shoot him which might kill him what do you do? If you do nothing you are complicit in the death of a thousand people. What if only one man will die unjustly if you do not stop the murderer?


Because Stephen Willeford needs to be able to confront a shooter to protect children and others the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.


Benefactors | Fathers | Conscripted fathers | Pater Patriae‎ | Patronus |
Rome vs US | Gods | Imperial Cult of Rome | Apotheos | Supreme being |
Corvee | Employ | Corban | Christian conflict | Merchandise | Bondage |
Citizen | Protection | Birth registration | Mark of the Beast | Undocumented |
Religion | Public religion | Pure Religion | False religion | Cult | Tesserae |
Covetous Practices | If I were the devil | Biting one another | Cry out


Footnotes

  1. Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio protectionem. Coke, Littl. 65."
  2. Some claim that Hitler did not say this but he did say "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations with the English translation copyrighted 1953 by Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Cited passage, from Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942: The quote could be the work of a very liberal translation, which is why finding an original source is so elusive. But it is clear that Hitler wanted to disarm the Jews 1938 German Weapons Act just as democrats today want to disarm conservatives.
  3. “In the United States citizenship is defined in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.’”
  4. Supreme Court of Georgia, Padelford, Fay ∓mp; Co. vs Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,520 (1854).
  5. Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492; etc. Black’s 3rd Ed. p. 95.
  6. "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
  7. Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

About the author

To read more go to "His Holy Church" (HHC) http://www.hisholychurch.org/