Note
from Lady Liberty:
Though written as Memorial Day approached, Ms. Graham's thoughts and
sentiments remain valid after Memorial Day, and on every day throughout
the year.
Originally
posted from 06-02-02 to 06-12-02
Memorial Day Musings
by Kathryn A. Graham
Memorial Day is
here again, when every American patriot should reflect on those who
have died for our country and our way of life.
This year, I find
Memorial Day a painful reminder of what we have lost, of how we have
betrayed those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us down through our
history. These thoughts just keep coming back, lurking on the edge of
thought and hurting me, like a nagging sore tooth. I can’t keep
from thinking about it, no matter how much I want to.
I took that very
same military oath, long ago in my innocent youth - the one about defending
my Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It haunts
my sleep today. I wake up in a cold sweat during the silent hours of
the night. Have I forgotten that oath? Have I betrayed it? Have I lost
my honor?
You see, I am a
pacifist as well as a patriot. I cannot initiate force against my government
or my neighbor, even when my government leaders have shown themselves
to be the worst domestic enemies of my Constitution in more than a century.
I simply cannot declare war on my country. Ever. Even if it weren’t
a moral stance, the idea would still be repugnant to me. I have lived
abroad and loved it – temporarily – but I am 100 percent American
right down to my toenails.
Each time I listen
to my heart pounding while I sweat in the silent darkness, I must remind
myself of what the word "defend" means. I cannot initiate
force against any individual or government. I cannot. I will not. No
amount of rage or disgust can force me to it.
But I will resist
by force. I will defend by force. Oh, yes. I will use every scrap of
lethal violence I can muster to defend.
I am quite certain
that my government has already declared war on me, and it is only a
matter of time before the fight comes to me. But it will be a lot of
time, perhaps many years. I’m a very little fish. I don’t
have any money to seize or military style arms to make excuses easy.
It will take a long time for my government to find a"lie that will
fly" that they can use to come for me. But I make a loud noise,
so come they eventually will. They eventually must.
I, and many others
like me, have thrown a mailed gauntlet at their feet. I have flaunted
my weapons and said, very publicly, "Come and take them –
if you can." Power hungry despots like our leaders today cannot
ignore such a challenge. They are incapable of it.
When they do finally
come for me, it will actually be a relief. The waiting is the hardest.
Sticking to moral principles when every fiber of my being wants to hurt
them every bit as badly as they have hurt my beloved country is the
hardest thing I have ever done. I may be a pacifist, but I make no claims
to sainthood!
I have to remind
myself over and over again that defenders always have the advantage
in any fight. Our forefathers waited for the English to come to them.
We must wait for our leaders to come to us. And we must never stop trying
to defeat them through the political process. Perhaps – just perhaps
– it is not yet too late. But I fear that it is. Decades too late.
Pacifism isn’t
only moral conviction. It is common sense. To attack is suicide. We
must remain quiet and unthreatening and let them come. But when they
come, we must stand together and make every arrest, every death, so
hideously expensive that they can no longer keep coming for us. It is
the only way to win, but it is so very hard to wait.
Very hard.
Our government wants
to take our freedoms, and they want to take our means to enforce those
freedoms. Power corrupts, and the current administration has an unholy
addiction to power. We must remember, however, that we, the people,
can only lose our freedoms when we surrender them. We are the only ones
who can enslave ourselves – it cannot be done to us.
Throughout history,
whenever a population has been disarmed, dictatorship and mass murder
– and frequently genocide – have followed. That is why the
Second Amendment is the most important provision in the Bill of Rights.
I will not surrender
my arms. That is my line in the sand.
Come and take them.
If you can.
At a tiny 5'1",
Kathryn A. Graham is a licensed private investigator, pilot, aircraft
mechanic and handgun instructor in Texas. Also a prolific author, she
has written numerous articles, short stories and a science fiction novel
entitled "Flight From Eden. Ms. Graham is the Texas Director for
Armed Females of America.
Originally
posted from 03-04-02 to 03-14-02
"Wearing Down the Walls"
by DracoDei
I grew
up in a good, solid Massachusetts liberal home. My parents both had
doctorates, and my father taught at Harvard. I was surrounded - innundated!
- by "progressiveness". Given that upbringing, how could I
possibly be pro-gun?
Up
until my early 20's, I was anti-gun. "Ban 'em all!" would
have been my response to the question of gun control. After all, I heard
that the US had umty-ump gun deaths, while England had some small number,
Japan had an even smaller number, etc. And, of course, all the statistics
showed that gun control was the way to go. Just look at Washington,
DC's gun homicide rate when guns were banned.
Then,
I graduated college. Being a technical weenie, I found myself in the
Detroit area working for the automotive supply industry. And, as it
happened, my neighbor was a cop. He was agreat guy, all things said.
He'd water my plants and take in my mail when I was away, and I did
the same for him. I remember, prior to one trip, going over to drop
off my keys, and noticing a small, semi-automatic pistol on the table.
Now, even being anti-gun, I accepted that the police should have firearms.
I knew not to touch one without permission, so I asked. He confirmed
that the gun was not loaded, handed it to me explaining that I shouldn't
point it at anybody even if unloaded, and proceeded to recommend that
I get one for self-defense.
What?!?
Here's a cop, a professional, recommending I get a gun? This flew counter
to everything I'd heard. So I wrote to the NRA and HCI and started to
compare notes. I went to a local range and tried out a Glock. While
I decided that owning one was not for me, I'd also thought I'd better
dig further. When I did, I found something very interesting. HCI's stats
would only tell half the story; when the complete data was found from
the NRA, it contradicted HCI. In fact, I found that HCI contradicted
itself. And I, the engineer enamored with hard numbers, started
doing my own examinations, specifically on international crime rates.
I'd
long been suspicious about the international comparison, thinking that
the single-variable statistics had to be too simple. First, they didn't
take population sizes into account. While the other nations' crime rates
by gun were still lower than those in the U.S., it was immediately clear
that they were left non-normalized (i.e., without taking population
size differences into account) for dramatic effect. But then I noticed
that England's homicide rate by knife was also lower, as were
their rates by other weapons types. This was the clincher - if gun laws
were the only difference, then murders by "personal weapons",
i.e., hands and feet, should be the same. They weren't. I concluded
that any organization that relies on such systemic half-truths, distortions,
and outright manipulations can't be right.
Then
I met the woman I eventually married, and learned that she'd used a
handgun to stop a potential rapist. I dug further, contacting notables
such as Dr. Gary Kleck and more recently Dr. John Lott. Their kindness
in sharing information, both copies of published studies as well as
unpublished drafts convinced me unequivocally that the anti-gun crowd
is wrong.
Anti-gunners
are, for the most part, uninformed. There exists a great deal of evidence
around that can be used. Take one shooting, just to let them see "what
the fuss is about." Talk with him or her. Share the data from Kleck's
defensive gun use study - and the dozen other studies that corroborate
it. Talk about Lott's study, and the two dozen independent researchers
who have validated the work. Describe the skyrocketing crime rates in
the gun free paradises of England, Australia, and Jamaica. And then
ask how we can keep guns out of the "wrong" hands when cocaine
and other drugs flow freely into the U.S. Point out that in 1987 the
BATF found that 20% of the guns seized in Washington, DC were homemade.
And remind him or her that the police are under no obligation to protect
citizens.
Like
a drop that wears away a boulder, it will take time, but it can be done.
Just remember that they must convince themselves. Facts, like water
applied correctly and persistently, can wear away even the subbornest
walls.
Originally
posted from 02-21-02 to 03-04-02
"The Gaping Hole in the Loophole"
by DracoDei
Hysteria
typically surrounds most attempts at curtailing liberty. Such is the
case with the alleged "gun show loophole". Freedom haters
say gunshows are supermarkets for criminals. They bounce up and down
talking about how anyone can buy anything for the right price - an example
is the claim that rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons have
been sold to Islamic terrorists and shipped overseas. Never mind the
fact that such things are not for sale at gun shows, the sales must
be stopped! As others have argued before me, there is such a wealth
of weapons available in the Middle East that buying small arms in the
US and shipping them there is like shipping coals to Newcastle.
Also
forget the fact that, despite the shrill claims, federal studies have
shown that the percentage of criminals who obtained weapons at gun shows
is laughably small. To say that a near-negligible source is worthy of
being attacked is idiotic, especially when there are many more convenient
sources for firearms. For example, in the late 80's the BATF found that
40% of the firearms seized in Washington, DC, had been stolen from the
police! Better disarm the cops first. And don't forget to lock up all
machine tools, for another 20% of the confiscated guns had been homemade.
Gun
show "private sales" make up a small fraction of all sales
at gun shows. Yet despite overwhelming evidence that these sales make
a negligible contribution to the availability of firearms on the street,
the gun show loophole banshees wail, stricken that there are any sales
that aren't fed into the National Instant Check System (NICS). Despite
the law that says it is illegal for the federal government to create
a registry of gun owners, there are few doubts that the NICS program
is used for exactly that purpose.
History
has shown time and time again that registration leads to confiscation.
This is the real motive behind the anti-freedom crowd's gnashing of
teeth. Without knowing who has what, confiscation would require impossible
expenditures of manpower and time. Even with such knowledge it'd be
difficult, but knowing makes the job feasible.
Any
action that could lead to government being able to quantify the threat
against it from the people who, at the last, decide to exercise their
sacred right to fight tyranny must be resisted. Ideally, of course,
the whole idea of background checks should be summarily trashed and
records destroyed, with gun-friendly organizations monitoring the process.
For those who are unsure of this extreme step, consider: During elections,
ballots are secret to avoid the risk of your vote coming back to haunt
you should someone prone to abuse power get into office. The same argument
holds for not permitting registration.
Whenever your freedoms are threatened - as they are now under the McCain-Lieberman
legislation - call your senators
and representative. Write
a letter to the editor. Be brief, be polite, be armed with the
facts, but be active