What is the Militia?

From the JPFO:

One of the most common arguments gun-prohibitionists use is that the term “militia” in the Second Amendment refers to States’ right to maintain an army — that is, the National Guard.

We all know better, and here’s proof. Following is a scan from the 1771 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. You can see a scan of the whole page, plus the cover page, in PDF format here.

The definition of militia reads:

MILITIA, in general, denotes the body of soldiers, or those who make profession of arms.
…..In a more restrained sense, militia denotes the trained bands of a town or country, who arm themselves, upon a short warning, for their own defence. So that, in this sense, militia is opposed to regular or stated troops.
…..For the direction and command of the militia, the king constitutes lords-lieutenants of each country.

Share/Save

Gould Hall Tragedy

Share/Save

Restraining Orders Work!

…actually, they don’t, unless they’re made out of Kevlar. Reference this sad story. Apparently the psycho ex-boyfriend made some threats on her life and so she moved, changed her phone number and got a restraining order. She even went so far as to email a photograph of the psycho-ex to the other people in the building. What she should have done is got a gun and learned how to use it. I should also point out that the Victim worked in a “Gun Free Zone”, i.e., a “Victim Rich Zone”. It’s like posting a sign inviting every psychopath and sociopath to come and kill with impunity because no one will be able to resist them. Let me make one thing clear. In my opinion, it would have been better for the victim to lose her job for being armed, than to keep it and become a statistic.

What struck me as particularly ironic, was the following sentence:

“Wittmier said he didn’t believe campus police were aware of the restraining order against Rowan. He also said Rowan likely did not have permission to carry a handgun on campus.”

First of all, when it came to protecting her life, the restraining order was about as useful as the “Gun Free Zone”. Second, whether or not the psycho-ex had permission to carry a handgun on campus is immaterial. Criminals by definition do not obey the law.

According to the news story, there were numerous clues about what was going to happen. Looking back it was an inevitability, so why did no one do anything to prevent it? Why did no one give the victim the protection she needed so desperately? It is a fact the Police cannot protect you and are under no obligation to. Their job is to come after the fact and draw an outline around your corpse and collect evidence. In a life or death situation, the only one who can protect you, is you.

We’ll never know if she attempted to reason with him. We’ll never know if she tried to use Karate or Kung-Fu. We’ll never know if she attempted to kick him in the groin or gouge out his eyes with her keys… One thing we do know is that she was unarmed in a gun free zone when her attacker struck. A gun may not have saved her life, but it certainly would have “leveled the playing field” with the criminal.

I have two young daughters, and when they grow up, if they are in a similar situation, I will make sure that they are safe. They will be armed and know how to shoot. They will be able to protect themselves!

This tragedy could have been prevented. The victim could have been found standing over the corpse of her psycho-ex with a smoking gun, instead of on the floor in a pool of blood.

We need to change the law in this state to allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds. We need to allow the potential victims out there their Second Amendment right to carry a gun for protection. Until we do this, there will be more restraining orders and more dead victims. How many more dead victims do we need?

-Yuri

Share/Save