It's a KABA Sunday
The Ninth Amendment states:and:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." -- James Wilsonand:
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." --- John Adams
Claire Wolfe at Doing Freedom! - Wrong House Raid - an oldie but goodie illustrating the difference between local police and federal goons. [kaba]
Sunni Maravillosa at Sierra Times - Countering No Rights Zones - some ideas for making it crystal clear that "No Rights Zones" are NOT OK. [kaba]
We can refuse to go gently into this black night of tyranny. For many of us, that will require growing a spine, or straightening one stooped from years of meekly going along with the Thought Police's slow but steady ravages of our liberties. It's easy to talk about what a police state the United States has become; it's easy to write about the indignities we endure in the name of an "eternal war" on terror; it's difficult to challenge those who think they rule us by taking action. But that's what we must do.
What form does that action take? It can take any of several, actually, and I know I'll miss some. Each individual must consider the form the rights infringement takes along with possible consequences for bringing it to public attention. Sometimes simply getting in the Thought Police's face is enough; other times it takes hitting 'em in the pocketbook.
John R. Lott Jr. at National Review - A Woman's Choice: Letting her defend herself. - Mr. Lott extols the virtues of Lousiana Governor Mike Foster's advice to women. [trt-ny]
A year ago it would have been shocking news: a governor publicly telling women to get a concealed handgun permit so that they can defend themselves against a serial killer. Hardly politically correct advice. Yet, in this post-9/11 world, no overwhelming calls are being made for a retraction of the governor's statements. Contrast this with the typical recommendation that women behave passively or simply make sure that their doors are locked.
The Hunter at Sierra Times - A New "Defining Moment"? Goodbye To The First Amendment - more on the arrest of Nathan Barton for speeking without permission at the South Dakota State Fairgrounds. [kaba]
Hunter's Nineteenth Rule: Be careful to choose principles you'd die for; somebody may decide to give you the option.
Walter E. Williams at World Net Daily - Parting company - Mr. Williams reminds us that many states made it a condition of their ratification of the U.S. Constitution that they retained the right to secede should the feds get out of line. Lincoln trumped most of their options, but some folk still remember: [kaba]
What can be done now? Are there any signs that those Americans who want to unconstitutionally control the lives of others are going to let up soon? I say no, but there's a peaceful resolution proposed by Free State Project, whose motto is, "Liberty in our lifetime."
Glenn Harlan Reynolds at Fox News - Lessons From History - How Joyce Lee Malcolm's Guns and Violence: The English Experience shatters the myth that England has (er... had) lower crime than America because of its gun restrictions. [kaba]
It is a standard observation in American and English debates over gun control that England has strict gun controls and low crime rates, while America has (comparatively) liberal gun laws and higher crime rates. It is usually assumed that there is a cause and effect relationship, with the low crime stemming from the strict gun controls in England, and vice versa in the United States.
This turns out not to be the case. As Malcolm observes, violent crime rates in England, very high in the 14th century, fell more or less steadily for five hundred years, even as ownership of firearms became more common. By the late 19th century, England had gun laws that were far more liberal than are found anywhere in the United States today, yet almost no gun crime, and little violent crime of other sorts. (An 1870 act, which was seldom enforced, required the payment of a small tax for the privilege of carrying, not simply owning, a gun.)
...
By 1953, the English were effectively disarmed -- and compounding the insult, courts began prosecuting people for previously legal (and even encouraged) acts of violence in defense of persons and property. In the future, only the police were to use violence, and even they tended to be quite lenient toward violent criminals.
In a "coincidence" that will surprise few readers who are familiar with the work of criminologists like John Lott and Gary Kleck, English crime rates almost immediately began a steady rise, for the first time in 500 years. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States. And it wasn't just crime in general: Gun crimes became far more common as well.
