Tag Archives: laws

Your Call

I ran across a story talking about  women who use guns to defend themselves, it was written by a woman. She seemed to be no big fan of the notion. Her complaints are that women are at greater risk from former partners and spouses than they are strangers. She feels gun rights groups only get the “Stand Your Ground” laws passed by emphasizing “strangers lurking in bushes”, and that since most of the attacks against women are from known people this is a false argument. She quotes Mary Ann Franks, the anti-gun law professor who wants you to take her karate classes instead, if this give you any idea about the author. She says guns are the weapons of choice for batterers, so she wants women armed with what? Hairspray? The website the story is on has helpfully placed a related story on the sidebar about “12 Facts That Show How Guns Make Domestic Violence Even Deadlier”. I’m thinking this web site reeks.

She does however, rightly point out that women have gone to prison for defending themselves against a violent attacker. I did an interview with one many years ago. It was when the case for Castle Doctrine was being heard in several states. One of the legislators said if anyone had ever gone to prison for defending themselves with a gun it was an “anomaly”. I heard this story from attorney and author Kevin Jamison who said he informed the legislator he called them “people”. This story got me to thinking about a case I had read about a woman who had gone to jail for defending herself with a gun. I wondered if I could find her, by now the Internet had come along. For some reason I remembered her name, and with some help and passed on messages got in touch with her. I won’t republish the whole interview but heres the Sheila’s Notes version, like Cliff’s Notes, only provided free here.

This was a woman who had a profession that was all about saving lives and intervening in a medical crisis. She attracted a stalker without even knowing it. He stalked her for a while before she even met him. He would break into her house, move things, move things in her yard, and she raised dogs. He killed twenty-one of them, twenty-one innocent dogs killed because this ass-wipe wanted to scare her. And he did. She did all the right things, called the sheriff, reported everything. They would come out and take pictures and that would be the end of it. One day he left her a note telling her he was coming that night. She called the Sheriff’s Department to let them know, to ask for help. They said they would have two deputies right up the street, so when he came, they could arrest him, or remove him. The stalker came, the deputies didn’t. He forced his way into her home, she RETREATED, she RETREATED the length of her house, 60 feet I believe she said. She RETREATED to the last room in her house, the bedroom, where she had an old shotgun. He followed her, he followed her the whole length, and when he had her corned in her bedroom, he pulled a knife on her. She had followed all the rules, she had called the Sheriff, she asked for help ahead of time, for a year and a half this man had been terrorizing her without consequences, and now he threatened her life. She was all alone. She grabbed an old shotgun and took aim, the first round was a misfire. He LAUGHED at her and advanced, he said “What are you going to do? Shoot me?” She tried again, at first she didn’t think the second shell was going to fire, but it did. She thought she missed him, he turned around and left, going toward the end of the hall, where he knelt down, and dropped the knife. Then he continued on out of the house, with her following at a distance. She was telling him to lay down & curl up in a ball. He finally collapsed and she immediately called the Sheriff’s Department and THEN the deputies came.

From there it’s a tale of corruption, evidence disappeared, people that knew what was going on wouldn’t talk. Why? Oh, did I forget to mention the stalker was the sheriff’s nephew? Sorry, is that germane? She went to prison, for six years. Six long years for a woman who had dedicated her life to saving lives. The author of the story would say this is a failure of stand your ground laws, and that women having guns isn’t helpful because she went to jail. I think it is too, because she should never have gone to jail, though perhaps the sheriff that covered for his nephew should have.

We’ve heard of the Colorado Demoncratic state Senator Evie Hudak who told a rape victim, Amanda Collins:

that a gun would be useless in her defense because “statistics are not on your side, even if you had a gun.” Senator Hudak tells Ms. Collins in so many words that there is nothing a female can do during a rape except be a victim. She even states that martial arts are a useless pursuit as a women are likely to be overpowered anyway.

So there Mary Ann Franks, your class is always useless as well. Katie Pavlich wrote about the victim, Amanda Collins who had a concealed carry license when she was raped. She of course wasn’t carrying when it happened because she was in a “gun free zone” a campus. She was within 50 feet of the campus police department. She had left with a large group of people, and was a second degree black belt and was in a “safe zone” whatever the heck that means. She was raped.

At the hearing another Colorado Demoncrat, Rep. Joe Salazar’s helpfully commented about call boxes and rape whistles being sufficient self defense for women on campus, while another Demoncratic Rep. offered ballpoint pens should be used to defend against a attacker with a gun. The Colorado legislature passed four more gun control bills to disarm victims.

Amanda followed all the rules too.

So I was thinking about this story, and the women who have gone to jail for using a gun to defend themselves, legislators that condemn women to being defenseless victims, the media who lie regularly about self defense stories and writers who twist facts to suit their agenda and I’ve had a glorious idea. I had lunch with a good friend today and while we were talking she commented about someone having to walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins. BINGO.

I have an innovative plan to help sort these thorny issues out. For every legislator that wants to legislate women into defenselessness, for ever media moron, for ever prosecutor that dislikes guns and so goes after someone who uses one to defend herself, they get a minimum one hour virtual reality experience. At some point, they are taken to the best virtual reality technology center and given a one hour experience to allow them to experience what they have legislated others to, what they have presented to the public as truth, knowing it was a twisted lie. For ever celebrity that has sanctimoniously lectured how evil guns are while making money in action movies, virtual reality gets to slap them upside the head. Now if I was really evil? I would figure out a way to do it without them knowing they were dealing with virtual reality. Then the terror, the helplessness, the consequences really will have the impact on the elite decision makers and those that have paid protection. But that would be mean wouldn’t it? Almost as mean as telling women rape whistles, call boxes and telling your attacker you have a disease or are menstruating will keep you safe.

Pick one, your call.

The ever powerful pink pussy power hat

 

Taurus .38
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Zehut, The Politics of Identity

by Sheila Stokes-Begley

When many people go to Israel, the want to see the historical sights. I do as well, especially military museums. There will most likely be a column on that. A lot of people want to eat the fabulous
food. Yes, me too. They want to shop, I’m SO there, especially when you talk about Yafo. They want to swim, did that. But what I really, really, really, really wanted to do, was interview Moshe Feiglin. At
which most tourist are probably saying “Excuse me?” But that was one of my very highest hopes for this trip. And I was successful.

I first learned about the former MK (Member of Knesset) when in response to something I had written my wonderfully kind team mate Y.B. sent me a portion of a Torah Thought from Mr. Feiglin. I loved it! I asked for more info and Y.B. told me who had written it and who he was. I did online research and signed up for the Manhigut Yehudite newsletter and was soon getting my own copies of Torah Thoughts included with each newsletter which I very much looked
forward to receiving. Each newsletter included Torah and politics. Does it get any better? Well, also a Dry Bones Cartoon. That’s pretty good too.

Last year I got to interview Mr. Feiglin by phone, and it was a great interview. This year it was in person. I feel very blessed.

So why my fascination? My respect first blossomed when he was writing articles calling for the Israeli government to make it easier for everyday Israelis to get weapons permits. Gun Control? Or Citizen Control?

With all that has been going on in Israel, I had a lot of questions for Mr. Feiglin. Especially since he along with the support of a lot of everyday people have founded a new political party. Zehut, which means “Identity”. Zehut is unusual in that they also allow people from places other than Israel to join. And with that I tell you I am a proud card carrying member. Well, I will be when my card gets here, but I am.

My first question was why form Zehut? Was it in response to the betrayal of leadership in politics? They campaign on one platform and then when elected turn and go another direction?

Feiglin: The average Israeli feels disenfranchised from their Jewish identity and the concept of a Jewish state. (I believe he said in a recent poll that 80% of Israelis identify as Jewish first, and as an Israeli second). The disenfranchisement started with the Oslo accords and now takes the form of things like a Judge appointed to the High Court who refused to sing HaTikvah, the Israeli national anthem after being sworn in. It shows in an army which is now refusing to allow soldiers to grow beards, “too much Jewish”. And very sadly when a Yad Vashem guide pointed out that the murder of Gil-Ad Shaer,16, Eyal Yifrah, 19, and Naftali Fraenkel,16 had occurred in Gush Etzion because they were Jewish. (That would seem evident to
me, but I guess political correctness can run amuck anywhere). Israel is a Jewish democratic state, but 10% controls the power and it is eroding Jewish values.

I have a few questions about everyday Israelis being allowed to carry weapons. Why are there areas where people are not allowed to have carry permits? A buddy moved from Jerusalem where he could carry, to Tel Aviv and now he can’t. He’s no less qualified in Tel Aviv. Yafo which suffered a terrorist attack is certainly within walking distance of Tel Aviv, I’ve done so! Why aren’t the military allowed to carry off duty, and why after people are out of the military can they not automatically be allowed to carry a weapon? As it turns out, the answer to all these questions are the same. Mr. Feiglin is very good at seeing the big picture and summing it up.

Feiglin: Because the concept of freedom is wrong. It should be the concept that the right of self- defense is G-d given! In Israel they believe that the right is given by the state. And if the state can give you the right to self defense, they can take that right away. In America they had the right concept, although they are losing the mindset. They believed anyone should be allowed to own guns unless they showed they were not to be trusted with them. (I pointed out that the UN does not believe self defense is a human right at all. Considering how anti-Israel the UN is, that is really not a good
combination). Zehut believes in planting in the Israeli mind the concept of true freedom. That everyone is responsible to defend their life, that of their family and the nation. Of course, there are those that oppose this. When I was in the Knesset I fought for more people to be allowed to carry. There were 150,000 people licensed to carry. But the Knesset wants to decrease that till terrorism decreases. You have the state as “Big Brother”.

What about the shooting in Hevron? (Sheila’s article on this incident) WHY is this soldier being prosecuted? Didn’t the fact that the video came from B’Tselem raise suspicions? This produced a wealth of information. This is so much more to this than a simple case of Katie Couric media malfeasance. I really think you should go read Moshe’s whole article on this topic, but here is what we covered.

Feiglin: This is a war of Israelis and Jews. It’s the soul of the Israeli, for what comes first, a concept of citizen or Jewish state. It’s been going on a long time. For the Israeli (in this comparison, sounds to me like your typical “enlightened” leftist who doesn’t have good sense about how this will play out) it’s the citizen, not Jewish state or identity. It was certainly evident when the Eichmann trial took place in Israel in 1961. A Jewish writer Hannah Arendt wrote a book, “Eichmann In Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,”with basically the premise that Eichmann was just there, wrong place, wrong time. Can’t blame him, can’t blame anyone but Hitler. Anyone would have acted the same. Apparently some Israeli “intellectuals”
felt the need to agree.
This kind of thinking is evident in the IDF today. The former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon recently said that “If someone rises to kill you, kill him first” is not the IDF’s strategy. The Deputy Chief of Staff equated those who subscribe to that value with Nazis. He would rather lose soldiers who protect citizens than kill terrorists. There is no difference in the value of the life of a person just out doing their shopping and the terrorist that comes to kill them. Certainly had nothing to do with ideology, right? But yet today some Arabs want to kill any Jew, soldier, civilian, man, woman, child or baby, it doesn’t matter. It IS the ideology. When Arafat was sick in Ramallah I had a sign on my car that said Hurry up and kill him before he dies. For someone that had that much blood on his hands to die in his own time is immoral. For terrorists to go to trial is immoral. A healthy Jewish response is you kill the attackers. You kill the terrorists that have
declared their own war on Jews. After the soldier killed the terrorist, the stabbings stopped. He did more than all the speeches.

What about the Temple Mount, Har HaBeit? Why are the Israeli police so quick to remove Jews? One young boy was even recently removed not for saying anything but because he had tears in his eyes. And for those that wonder, yes I did express my opinion of Moshe Dayan’s decision.

Feiglin: It has to do with losing identity. We must let Jews have their identity on the Temple Mount. There are those replacing Jewish identity, and they fear what Israel will become with it’s Jewish identity. Arabs do not really have an identity so much as filled with hatred. It’s in their textbooks, their schools, mosques, social media and how they are raised. If Israel disappeared from the map, there would be no more “Palestinian”. Their reason for being would be gone. The first Zionists were colonialists from Europe, and they just wanted to be one big happy family. They didn’t understand the Arab mindset. Most Israelis are Jews first, Israeli second but they are being led by a minority that doesn’t have that mindset.

What about the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) or as I call it (BS) movement? Has it had an effect? Is it just plain anti-Semitism in increments?

Feiglin: BDS is about the delegitimizing of Israel. When did the holocaust start? (He did ask me this, and I thought for a second and answered “the night Hitler was conceived”) That was the correct answer. When Hitler spoke again and again against the Jews it had it’s effect. In 1939 or 1940 when Jews ran to their neighbors to hide, they were killed. It was about eliminating the right of Jews to exist. Israel has to attack Iran, there is a real danger of Jewish history being written in Jerusalem. Not Warsaw. It’s needed to make a moral point. There is a correlation between the speeches made in Iran 12 ½ years ago by Ahmadinejad and the delegitimization of Israel, and it’s growing.

My last question to him “We’ve had a possible Kenyan as a president, at least someone not really raised as an American, I think we should try having an Israeli for a President, would you run?”

Feiglin: I’ve been asked about the current election. My answer is it doesn’t matter which one wins. If Israel will do what is best for Israel, then all will be better.

I started this interview by telling him that I felt like I cared more about Israeli lives than some Israeli politicians did.

After talking to him, I am quite certain that is not how it is when it comes to Mr. Feiglin. He has a very sound political platform based on a Jewish identity in THE Jewish state, living by Jewish laws and principles. Laws that will protect the innocent, laws that will allow every citizen living their daily lives be it in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Be’er Sheva, Judea and Samaria to know their lives are worth defending and giving them the means to do so. It will allow the IDF to return to being the fine army it was meant to be and not a social experiment.

Zehut is a party based on knowing who we are, and what we are, and where we belong. And embracing it!

Honestly, I think there is a lesson in this for Americans as well. Because I’m very, very tired of having values that the majority of U.S. believe in being derided and told “that’s not who we are”.
Yeah, it is. And as the politicians and their compatriots in the media crank up to hype another round of gun control tripe, we would do well to remember it. It makes me think so much of “You can live
by G-d’s law or die by man’s.

I want to thank three wonderful people, Aryeh Sonnenberg who is the international director of Zehut and so warmly welcomed me when I joined. He put me in touch with Shmuel Sackett (who I got to talk with on the phone, really) who set the meeting up with Moshe. Shmuel also writes excellent articles. And I very much want to thank Moshe Feiglin for giving me an hour of his very valuable limited time. And since I often like to close with a video, this one is perfect!

(source)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Danger of gun control – my explanation

Many gun grabbers challenge us by asking why we don’t want more gun control laws. After all, why wouldn’t we want to make the nation safer?

Many of them just don’t understand the unintended (or intended) consequences.

Background checks. Fingerprint technology. Onerous licensing requirements. These things all require money – whether it’s funding for a bigger bureaucracy, databases, research, resources for investigators. It is resources the government has to spend on new databases for background checks. It is resources it has to spend on funding new research and technologies. It is resources gun shops (many of which are small businesses) have to expend on paperwork, legal bills, etc.

These are cost increases they invariably pass on to their customers.

Guns are already fairly expensive – several hundred dollars for a basic pistol.  It’s a fairly sizeable investment – especially for people who are struggling in this economy. If faced with the choice of armed self defense, or food on the table, I’m betting most would choose food.

Making guns even more expensive through regulation makes them cost prohibitive for many poor folks, who may live in neighborhoods that don’t have the gates and the armed guards that people like Bloomberg and Shannon Watts can afford.

By making self defense tools cost prohibitive to poor people, we are depriving them of their ability to defend themselves with the most effective tools on the market today.

Meanwhile, the background checks, the technology, the bureaucracy, and research do nothing to deter criminals from getting their hands on guns.  Most get guns illegally, or from a family member or friend, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun
at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm
at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from
a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or
friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source

So while gun controllers make tools of defense more inaccessible to people who truly need them, criminals continue to purchase them with impunity, and there’s not a single law that will prevent a criminal from violating it.

As a good buddy of mine, who just happens to be a sheriff and 30-year law enforcement veteran says, “Laws are for the law-abiding.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail