All creatures great and small are born with one unalienable right; the right to protect themselves from being harmed by any other living thing, the right of self defense which is the primary law of nature. In order to accomplish this effectively, one must be both willing and able, to respond to any attack with equal, or greater, force than that used against them. A conscious refusal to defend oneself amounts to an act of suicide.

NOTE: Based on the flawed and totally inane "Frey Report", issued in July, 2006, which declares that there is no human right to self defense, the United Nations may consider armed self defense a violation of the attacker's civil rights. If you are attacked by a knife wielding scumbag, and you shoot him, without being absolutely positive that his intention was to kill you, maybe he only intended to carve his initials in your forehead, you have just violated his civil rights. Additionally, if you shot him with a Taurus brand handgun, Brazil is also guilty of violating your attackers civil rights, because it allowed the gun to be exported to a country where the gun was used to violate someone's civil rights. Can you believe that s**t? By the way, this is exactly what is going on in the U.K. today. People are actually going to jail for defending themselves. I wonder how Prof. Frey, as a married mother of three children, would answer the questions in the survey at the bottom of this page? People like Prof. Frey always think "it can never happen to me," until it does.

Barbara Frey who wrote the "Frey Report" is an ultra left, feminist, Law Prof., at the University of Minnesota. Here is her e-mail address. freyx001@umn.edu Why don't you let her know what you think about her report.

Self-defense is more than a right it is "the Primary law of nature" and it was viewed in that context by our Founding Fathers.

Without actually mentioning it, the Second Amendment guarantees the "Primary Right" on a collective basis, "the right of the People," thereby guaranteeing it also on an individual basis. This was a recognized and accepted fact over 200 years ago.

"The whole Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large, or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-Albert Galatin, New York Historical Society, Oct.7, 1789

Why are we still debating it today?

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the term "the People" as used explicitly in the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment s means the entire general populace that makes up our "national community," (everyone) thus reaffirming, that in the Second Amendment, the people’s right to arms as an individual right rather than a collective, militia right.

The Founding Fathers made no distinction beween "social" crime and "political" crime. To them it was one and the same, and therefore unnecessary to differentiate between the two. The Second Amendment covered both eventualities, the need to defend one's life, and possessions, or the Constitution.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion..... in private self-defense."
-James Madison

"Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense...."
-John Adams

"The Constitution of most of the states (and of the United States) asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson

Note that Thomas Jefferson considered "to be at all times armed," not only a right, but a DUTY of each citizen.

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."
-Sir William Blackstone

Many Americans today are indeed forfeiting their right to self-defense and are thereby jeopordizing not only the future of this nation, but the freedom of their children and grandchildren.

The People's "right to keep and bear arms" for the national defense, as guaranteed in the Second Amendment, is only secondary to the "Primary Right" of self-defense. This was so well understood by our Founding Fathers, as their own words clearly show, that there was no need to mention personal self-defense.

"Each of us has a natural right -- from God to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?"
-Frederic Bastiat

"He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself."
-From a sermon, Philadelphia, 1747

"God has given life. Refusal to defend it denies and disparages God's gift and is tantamount to suicide. A victim is morally bound to kill rather than allow another to take his or her life."
-Annonymous

Published in The Orlando Sentinel, July 19, 1998

The easiest way to resolve, in your own mind, the citizen disarmament debate is to take this little test.

1. Do you believe that you have a right to live?

2. Do you believe that your spouse and children have a right to live?

3. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, do you think that you have a right to defend yourself?

That's the objective, yes-or-no part of the quiz. Now here is one final essay question:

How will you defend yourself and your family if you are confronted by an armed intruder or intruders?

You could call 911 unless, as often happens these days, the intruders have taken the trouble to cut your telephone wires before they kick your door down. But if you did get the call off, you still have a problem:

The intruders are there in your house, and the police aren't.

The sad fact is that, because of logistics, police can't protect you. In more than 99 percent of the cases, by the time the police even get called -- and certainly by the time they arrive -- the crime has already been committed.

The hard truth is that, when you are confronted by a criminal, you're in the same situation today you would have been in if you had lived alone on an isolated ranch on the American frontier. There's nobody at the dance but you and the criminal. You have to fight. You win, you live; you lose, you die. Simple as that. No alternative unless you want to depend on your begging and some thug's mercy. But in serious encounters, by the time the cavalry gets there, there will be dead and wounded lying around. The question you have to answer is: Do you want to be among the dead or among the living?

Now you may suppose that you are a glib talker and when some crack-crazed thug sticks a gun in your face, you can reason with him. That's a very far-fetched supposition. I would bet on the thug. Any honest street cop will tell you that the predators roaming today are far more dangerous than even mob hit men of the past. The hit men would never kill without a reason. Today's thugs kill on a whim for no rational reason at all. And many of them will kill everyone there, including babies and children.

The neo-totalitarians -- sometimes known as the citizen disarmament crowd -- will repeat the big lie that a gun kept for self-protection is more likely to injure you or your family than a criminal. The flawed study that is based on was discredited years ago.

If you take a gun to a gunfight, you may not win; if you don't, you will surely lose. Credible studies by respected scholars with no bias show what common sense tells you -- that thousands of Americans every day save themselves from criminal harm by using a firearm, most of the time without having to shoot.

To me, there is no more outrageous insult or bigger example of stupidity than a government that is such a gross failure at preventing criminal, armed attacks on the population that it would take the position that the answer is to disarm the future victims. I take it as a given that any politician who proposes to deny honest people the means to defend their lives and the lives of their children is too evil or too stupid to tolerate in public office.

Some guy once wrote that a characteristic of Southerners is that they take things personally. I know that's true in my case. When I hear some politician talk citizen disarmament, I think, ``You (expletive deleted), you're endangering my children.''

You have a right to own a firearm. Don't let anyone take that right away from you. Use it.

NO MORE GUN LAWS Stop persecuting law-abiding citizens for the criminal acts of a few. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books right now, so let's start enforcing them, before we add any more. We need to hold the parents responsible when, through their neglegence, their children take and use their guns, and then subject those who use the guns to adult justice. Existing laws aren't being enforced, and people aren't being held responsible, because anti-gun zealots can't, or won't, admit that it's actually people who ARE responsible. If they were to admit that people are responsible, their arguments against the gun itself evaporate, and if guns aren't responsible, there's no reason to ban them.