Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Safer streets 2012: Repeal all gun laws, Part I.
by John Longenecker

Gun owners often remark that they carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy. This is cute, but it makes the point. In this country, the citizen is supreme authority, and when a citizen is armed, the law is present. It is on our authority that we delegate to law enforcement powers we wish them to have in order to do the jobs we ask of them. In doing this, however, we have never surrendered the totality of our supreme authority as the Sovereign. It is this which is recognized by forty-eight states who affirm the armed citizen within their borders, and who respect the rights of visitors from other states to be armed.

When I write about guns on campus, or other venues of armed citizen, I point out that the citizen has not only the right to armed self-defense, but also the legal authority to act in the absence of police. I compare this to Citizen CPR in the absence of Paramedics.

This comes from many sources, from public policy and public interest to just powers to general codified law and most of all from the idea that the citizens in this country are in fact the Sovereign. The second amendment in this country is the lethal force which backs our authority as the Sovereign. As the Sovereign, citizens cannot be subject to any gun control laws which attempt to regulate our being armed with lethal force. Our states predate the federal government and the feds are a creation of the states. As such, gun laws are a challenge to our sovereign authority as supreme. Little by little, our sovereignty is not only being blamed as hostile attitude and anti-government, but attitudes against guns and sovereignty are instigated as part of a larger movement to transfer sovereignty from the citizen to the State. I assure you, such a transfer is possible. Gun control is essential to losing our sovereignty over our government servants and our freedoms of movement. As such, there can be no such thing as so-called sensible gun laws...

Read the entire article: http://biggovernment.com/jlongenecker/2 ... ws-part-i/

http://tinyurl.com/5vxbe82

OakRidgeStars wrote:Safer streets 2012: Repeal all gun laws, Part I.
by John Longenecker

When I write about guns on campus, or other venues of armed citizen, I point out that the citizen has not only the right to armed self-defense, but also the legal authority to act in the absence of police. I compare this to Citizen CPR in the absence of Paramedics.

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscut. This analogy never occured to me. How is it we are, as a society, so eager to teach our hoi palloi CPR and the use of public defib devices, but we restrict the right of the citizen to defend him/herself and those around them???? As a CPR trained citizen and former volunteer firefighter, I can tell you - CPR administered incorrectly = death to the "patient."

I wonder what the stats are for "death by CPR." Oh, wait - they don't exist. If someone is administering CPR, the patient is already dead.

KaosDad wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:Safer streets 2012: Repeal all gun laws, Part I.
by John Longenecker

When I write about guns on campus, or other venues of armed citizen, I point out that the citizen has not only the right to armed self-defense, but also the legal authority to act in the absence of police. I compare this to Citizen CPR in the absence of Paramedics.

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscut. This analogy never occured to me. How is it we are, as a society, so eager to teach our hoi palloi CPR and the use of public defib devices, but we restrict the right of the citizen to defend him/herself and those around them???? As a CPR trained citizen and former volunteer firefighter, I can tell you - CPR administered incorrectly = death to the "patient."

I wonder what the stats are for "death by CPR." Oh, wait - they don't exist. If someone is administering CPR, the patient is already dead.

Carry this one step further and consider the "Good Samaritan Law" for first responders.

Excellent article here - well thought out and well said.

It also presents a strong case. It wasn't long ago when I was leaning a bit towards "reasonable" gun restrictions. These days I'm wondering how any restrictions can be reasonable when applied to the court's "reasonable man" principle.

I simply cannot logically reconcile the two concepts.

Andy