Freedom equals self defence

There are few things more fundamental to freedom than the right of self defence. If freedom means anything it is the right to defend ourselves against those who would hurt us or our families, or take our property.

The problem is, the nanny state is increasingly ambivalent about whether we can be trusted with that amount of freedom. Authoritarians would prefer the police provided protection so that we don’t need to do it ourselves. Indeed, the minute anyone acts to catch a criminal or prevent a crime they are at risk of accusations of “taking the law into their own hands”. If two or more people act jointly, they are just as likely to be called “vigilantes”.

Nonetheless, the law recognises a right of self defence. If we or our families are attacked or our property threatened, we are entitled to defend it without committing a crime.

However, that right is pretty meaningless if we are denied the means of self defence. Healthy strong males may feel confident in their ability to deal with most situations with their bare hands, but the elderly and most women would not share that confidence. Yet the law denies us all the right to possess a weapon solely for the purpose of self defence. Under John Howard’s gun laws, no state may issue a licence for a gun for the purpose of self defence. It is illegal to carry a knife for self defence, or indeed any other weapon. The only weapons we are permitted to use are those that happen to be available, as a result of other factors, when the attack occurs.

In the USA, 41 states now allow concealed carrying of firearms under a “shall issue” permit system. That is, the authorities are compelled to issue a permit provided the applicant passes a background check and general safety course. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, perhaps millions, now have permits. Many are people who would never be able to defend themselves in a physical confrontation.

Despite claims by anti-gun zealots in state after state that the introduction of permits would result in an increase in violence, the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts this. In every state, as shown in numerous studies, permit holders emerge as the most lawabiding people in the community. There is even some evidence pointing to a decline in certain types of crime.

I would like to collect as many scholarly articles and studies on this topic as possible. I will create a separate page on this site where each one can be listed, so that everyone can study this seriously misunderstood topic for themselves.

To kick off, here is an article from the Star Tribune in Minneapolis showing that after 5 years of concealed carry permits, statistics clearly show permit holders are not associated with an increase in crime.


7 Responses to Freedom equals self defence

  1. Phil says:

    How about this as a philosophy then?

    “To protect, family, community, property, self. For lawful recreation. As a deterrent to crime. To aid in the nations defence. As the final assurance of our rights and freedoms; Those citizens not disqualified by mental illness or felony conviction, have the right to keep and bear arms.”.

  2. willy says:

    how about this for a philosphy: “I have not ceded that much control of my life to the gubmint that they can make these decisions on my behalf”
    jwh and its ilk are making a lot of laws they are not entitled to make.if the majority want to tolerate this and vote for more of it, thats democracy, but dont count on everyone playing the ridiculous little games.

  3. Phil says:

    Sorry for the length of this piece, but this essay fits perfectly into this topic;

    A Final Right.

    It is a lightly accepted, but historical fact that the legal system, the forms of government, the traditions, and the Constitution(s) of Australia are derived from Britain. The Federal Constitution is in fact an act of the British Parliament (ratified by referendum), the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900. This is because the original states were British colonies and the British Parliament was the only body with the jurisdiction, and therefore the power to form the original states into the Commonwealth of Australia.
    Some British statutes, and English common law were received, and became effective, on settlement (in the case of NSW, the 26th January 1788, and somewhat later for the other colonies as they were established). Some other statutes, enacted since then, but before federation, applying specifically to the colonies, are said to apply by ‘paramount force’. These laws, and English common law, form the foundation of the legal tradition of Australia. This is how Australia inherited the basic tenets of Western Liberal/Democratic institutions. A form of law and government, unparalleled in history for it’s respect of the individuals’ rights and aspirations, and a system which has proved to be the best vehicle of human advancement and happiness yet devised. However, we need to look back further than 1788 to find the basic foundations of this system and it’s laws.
    English statutes were received ‘once and for all’ on settlement, that is, subsequent changes do not apply here. So, British law of the late 18th century, and some later changes, formed the laws of the Australian colonies. To find the core of our traditions then, we need to know what laws, what system, what Constitution prevailed in Great Britain prior to this time.
    Between 1765 and 1769, Sir William Blackstone published his epic work ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’. This was the dominant law book in Britain, and the colonies (including for some time, North America) for the next century or so. In a very real sense he defined the common law, and the Constitution of Britain of the time. Part one of that work provides a background to English history. Blackstone was greatly impressed by the legacies of English history, including such defining milestones as the Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights of 1689, which at that time, in contrast to our times, were accorded the respect of basic law. This, to a great extent, defines the foundation of Australian law (in fact, that of most of the English-speaking world), and greatly influenced the course of western legal and governmental practices, then and since.
    Blackstone distilled the law and constitution into what he called “…the principal absolute rights ……the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property…”.
    He went further, in declaring, “…But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment…”. He asserted that the Constitution established “…certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights…”, these being;
    The constitution, powers and privileges of parliament;
    The limitation of the kings prerogative (the limiting of arbitrary executive power, in modern times and terms ministerial or bureaucratic power);
    The right of the individual to apply to the courts for redress of injuries;
    The right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances;
    The fifth, and last auxiliary right , is that “…of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law..”. This is taken from the Bill of Rights of 1689, and is deemed necessary “..under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression…”.
    Every jurisdiction in Australia has passed laws, sponsored by the Federal government, which effectively removes this last right, to own and if necessary, use firearms in protection of life, liberty and property. They go further than that, in providing many opportunities for seizure of private property, legally acquired, without due compensation, and provide for unwarranted search and seizure. In effect, these laws assume that good citizens, who also happen to own a firearm, are little more than prospective criminals, and should be treated as such. These laws impinge directly on each of the three primary rights, in many ways, and to a great extent.
    These laws are but the most recent in a series of laws which assumes the worst of the common man, which assert, in effect that he cannot be trusted, must be ruled by his betters. Some of us believe something quite different, that the common man can and should be trusted and empowered. In fact must be by any society that calls itself ‘free’, and that mankind does in fact have the natural and absolute rights of personal security, personal liberty, and the right to property, and that further, they should have access to the institutions and means of protecting these rights. For if it is not for the protection of these rights, to protect the common good, to facilitate general welfare, that governments are instituted, then why do governments exist? They exist (or should) for no other reason than to protect and enhance the basic rights of the individual. The individual is the discrete, indivisible, smallest unit within society, the noble building block on which it must be based. If any individual does not fully have these rights, enshrined in law and accepted in practice, then the greater society of which he or she is a part has, at most, a veneer, a perception of freedom not supported by solid fact. Transgressions against these basic rights can be defined as crime, if by an individual, or oppression, if by the state.
    Where do these concepts come from? Some would argue that they are the values of mankind in his natural state, the conditions of most of our past as a species. Certainly these values extend back at least to our Saxon ancestors. Values suppressed but not extinguished in the Norman invasion of 1066, to regain ascendancy via the Magna Carta of 1215, to be further reinforced by other Charters, but especially by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which stated, in part;
    ”… Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom…”, “…By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law…”, “…By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law…”
    Parliaments remedy for these transgressions was, in part;
    “…That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal…”, and; “…That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law…”
    Further, that Parliament stated “…that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come….”.
    The Bill of Rights of 1689 did not grant rights to the individual, it recognised the natural and existing rights that help to make man free. Such a declaration can not be lightly dismissed, it can not be ignored, interpreted or arbitrarily redefined. It is as valid today in it’s reason for being as it was 300 years ago. It is one of the major foundations of Western values and principles. It seems that the rights and freedoms, which have been fought for and guarded for almost a thousand years, are under attack, liable to be lost in our era.
    Freedom to a shooter was not just an abstract concept. It was something that he could practice at the range any day. Firearms can be the means of ensuring the protection of life and property. They are the means to protect a nations sovereignty in time of war, insurance in time of peace, a deterrent to crime. A populace familiar with and access to arms greatly strengthens all of these , as demonstrated by Australia during World War 2, Switzerland, Israel, the USA (examine the success of the concealed carry,CCW handgun laws). In the final analysis, widespread ownership of arms is the best, possibly the only real assurance against oppression and tyranny. Firearms are not only the most potent symbol of a nation’s freedom possible, they are the most potent tool for maintaining and protecting that freedom
    Some will say that these concepts (of individual rights, and the means of assuring them, by law, or redress) belong to an earlier time, and a different place. I assert that these are the basic premises, tested by time, that constitute the foundations of freedom. That while many other ideologies (such as communism, fascism, socialism), have appeared, had their day, gone, none have been as successful as that enduring product of the age of reason, the Liberal Democracy (in the truest meaning of that term). These days there is another ideology in ascendancy, called political correctness, by some, more correctly corporatism by others. Whatever you call it, it is but another means by which the many can be controlled by the few. An experiment that should be discarded in favour of the noble, and proven instruments of the freedom of the common man, recognition and respect for the rights and responsibilities exercised by the individual, the foundation of all just and enlightened societies.
    However, the main argument against the system that has evolved over the last 30 years or so is not one of philosophy, but of practicality. It simply does not work very well. Whereas the system described by Blackstone, built upon and improved by Jefferson and the Founding Fathers of the United States, copied by revolutionary France and later by what we know of today as the ‘West’, does work, and very well. We have tried ‘their’ way, gun control is simply one very good example of the fashionable ideas of our time that in many (if not most) cases do not work. We need to objectively examine where we are, what will work and what won’t, and reclaim our freedom from those who trust the common man so little, and their own flawed perceptions and minority interests so much.

    This essay may be freely reproduced and distributed, providing it is reproduced in full.

  4. willy says:

    thats pretty damn sentiments exactly.
    however, most of the population have no concept of any of this.and that has been the result of decades of deliberate “education”. the current constitution states that queen liz #2 is head of our gubmint.we are part of the “british commonwealth” whilst liz is in charge, the old law says the gubmint cant remove our rights as recognised by the bill of rights and magne carta.she has effectivelly abdicated duty to the lying rodent and its familiars, the courts are bought and paid for by the same, and the politic**s simply cant afford to be accountable, wich means the population is totally at the mercy of our duly elected representatives.there is effectively NOTHING wich they cant sign into law, provided they dont upset to many sheep at once.this is the .au “democracy”.vote for more of the same or you will be fined.
    freedom indeed.
    to hold oneself as a free man nowadays means one is veiwed as a criminal by “the system”.

  5. Scott says:

    People need to realise that the police aren’t going to be there when you need them, nor do they legally have to be.
    Personal safety and defense is something that should be the responsibility of all individuals or their parents.

    If concealed carry was made legal in Australia I would sign up for the same reason that I lock the doors at night or wear my seat belt in the car. It’s about being prepared and taking responsibility for the well being of your person.

  6. Avraham says:

    People definately need to realise that the police are not always going to be around to protect them. Most situations the police would get to the problem once it’s too late already.

    Everyone should have the right to carry a firearm and each person should take the responsibility upon themselves to learn some sort of reality based self defence.

    Check out this video of this place I joined:

    Not only would it be safer with my gun but I also can disarm someone misusing theirs.

    Check out their website.. Their awesome!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: