Below is a column I posted at Nolanchart.com today.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3239.html
As the Supreme Court takes arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on guns is constitutional, an 81 year old Georgia man defends himself against a common thug.by EJ Moosa
(Libertarian)
Had the 81 year old man and his 78 year old wife lived in the District of Columbia rather than in Tucker, Georgia, he and his wife would certainly have been robbed, and possibly dead this morning. Instead, he defended himself and his wife against a common thug, shooting the thug dead.
By coincidence, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller yesterday. The belief that anyone is safer by not having the right to defend themselves is a lesson in insanity. The only person that would have been safer under such a scenario are those that seek to attack the innocent.
The Anti-Gun groups want to take the statement "to provide for a common defense", and say that it was meant for the militia. I suggest that it was meant to say that we would always have the right to defend ourselves against common threats of that time and of the common threats we have today.
The most common defense we as individuals face today is the threat of armed robbery or attack. We as individuals have the inalienable right to protect ourselves because we have the right to life. Taking away the right to defend ourselves will take away our right to life and give it to those that are willing to attack us.
Here in the state of Georgia, we have had several recent murders of women who were the victims of individuals who have no respect for human life. Two college students from Georgia have been killed in the last two weeks. Lauren Burk and Eve Marie Clarke were both murdered in the same week. Meredith Emerson was murdered after hiking in the North Georgia mountains. And several years ago, Jennifer Ewing was brutally murdered on the Silver Comet bike trail in 2006.
The results of this are that women in the state of Georgia are applying for permits to carry concealed weapons, they are taking self-defense courses, and are learning how to shoot and protect themselves. Fortunately, they live in a state that understands they have a right to protect themselves. Recently at the finger printing location for applicants in North Fulton County during the 15 minutes I was present, four of the five applicants were female and three of those applicants were 60 or over. Criminals should take note that these women are not going to be easy victims any longer.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will restore the rights of all of the citizens of the District of Columbia to defend themselves. The decision is to be delivered by June, 2008. Most importantly, this decision will affirm or deny our right to defend ourselves for decades to come. Let's hope they use common sense and allow us to defend ourselves legally.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3239.html
As the Supreme Court takes arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on guns is constitutional, an 81 year old Georgia man defends himself against a common thug.by EJ Moosa
(Libertarian)
Had the 81 year old man and his 78 year old wife lived in the District of Columbia rather than in Tucker, Georgia, he and his wife would certainly have been robbed, and possibly dead this morning. Instead, he defended himself and his wife against a common thug, shooting the thug dead.
By coincidence, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller yesterday. The belief that anyone is safer by not having the right to defend themselves is a lesson in insanity. The only person that would have been safer under such a scenario are those that seek to attack the innocent.
The Anti-Gun groups want to take the statement "to provide for a common defense", and say that it was meant for the militia. I suggest that it was meant to say that we would always have the right to defend ourselves against common threats of that time and of the common threats we have today.
The most common defense we as individuals face today is the threat of armed robbery or attack. We as individuals have the inalienable right to protect ourselves because we have the right to life. Taking away the right to defend ourselves will take away our right to life and give it to those that are willing to attack us.
Here in the state of Georgia, we have had several recent murders of women who were the victims of individuals who have no respect for human life. Two college students from Georgia have been killed in the last two weeks. Lauren Burk and Eve Marie Clarke were both murdered in the same week. Meredith Emerson was murdered after hiking in the North Georgia mountains. And several years ago, Jennifer Ewing was brutally murdered on the Silver Comet bike trail in 2006.
The results of this are that women in the state of Georgia are applying for permits to carry concealed weapons, they are taking self-defense courses, and are learning how to shoot and protect themselves. Fortunately, they live in a state that understands they have a right to protect themselves. Recently at the finger printing location for applicants in North Fulton County during the 15 minutes I was present, four of the five applicants were female and three of those applicants were 60 or over. Criminals should take note that these women are not going to be easy victims any longer.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will restore the rights of all of the citizens of the District of Columbia to defend themselves. The decision is to be delivered by June, 2008. Most importantly, this decision will affirm or deny our right to defend ourselves for decades to come. Let's hope they use common sense and allow us to defend ourselves legally.
