Subject:
Million Mom March Dangerous To Women And Kids
Date:
Mon, 14 May 2001 15:24:29 -0700
From:
"Liz Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:
"Liz Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization:
Analon
To:
I wrote this a year ago. I thought
maybe this Million Mom thing would go away and be seen for the
fraud it is. But apparently,
some in power insist upon its resurrection. Accordingly, I believe I need
to restate why this so-called
movement, which is nothing more than a political manipulation, is
dangerous and will cost lives.
Liz
Million Mom March Dangerous To Women And Kids
by Liz Michael
LizMichael.com, www.lizmichael.com
Released May 13, 2000 for immediate
release
I'm going to come right out and say this. I can't mince words any longer.
The so-called "Million Mom March"
represents a clear and present danger to every
woman in this nation, especially
every teenage girl in this nation. Every woman
participating in this march
is participating in an act that may very well lead to her own death,
assault, or rape, as well as
the death, assault or rape of any woman or young girl in her
family. Every individual participating
in this march or financing this march is
effectively sponsoring a future
criminal assault on me and people I love, and I hold
them as responsible as the criminal
himself.
I know what you're going to say:
"Liz, isn't that a bit strong? Can't intelligent people agree
to disagree?"
No, not on this. I'm tired of
trying to make peace with these people. I'm tired of having to
defend my right to protect myself
and my family. Tired of protecting my right not to be
raped. Not to be murdered. Not
to be a victim.
I usually approach the subject
of the Second Amendment with the approach for which I
believe it was designed: namely
that the Second Amendment was designed to keep various
arms in private hands to insure
against the establishment of a tyrannical government. I'm
gonna not talk about that: for
now. The Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide
notwithstanding.
I'm gonna frame the firearms issue strictly in terms of one factor. Natural law.
First of all, let's establish
one premise. A person under attack from an assailant has an
inherent human right to defend
themselves from that attack by any means necessary. I think
most of us, in our hearts, believe
that. If you do not believe that, you're already a stupid
idiot. YES! YOU! STUPID! I said
it. I meant it. Deal with it.
Second. That right is natural
and inherent. It is a right that any creature on this earth has by
nature of their creation. Look
at mammals, birds, insects, you name it. The vast majority of
them are vested by a survival
instinct to automatically repel any attempt to harm them, to
prevent it, to hide from it.
They are also given, in addition to their natural characteristics for
self-defense, a brain, to devise
ways of protecting themselves from attack, sheltering
themselves from attack, and
so forth.
Third, this right and instinct
extends to THEIR FAMILY. Look at almost any animal
species, and you will always
see vigorous attempts by mothers, and often even fathers, to
protect their young. But it's
not just blood relatives. That instinct toward self-protection also
extends to the pack, the pride,
the colony. Even if members of the colony really aren't
related.
Fourth, the right and instinct
also extends TO THEIR PROPERTY. You see this in the
wild. You even see it among
pets. It's why dogs make such good guards. They instinctively
protect the turf. And not just
real property, but THINGS also.
I had to lay all that out. Because
I think everyone who deludes themselves into thinking they
are civilized, or live in a
civilized society, ties themselves to the bizarre concept, that all
society's problems can be solved
if only they can pass some STUPID LITTLE LAW.
The criminal, though, like the
predator in the jungle, is under no such delusion. The criminal
determines exactly what he wants,
what his soul craves, and he goes after it. Sometimes
the law does dissuade him. But
the more vicious and demented he is, or the greedier he is,
the less likely any stupid little
law will deter him.
So into this eternal battle between
criminal and citizen, come these individuals. They say
that "we all will be safer if
we all submit ourselves to restraints upon when and how
we are allowed to defend ourselves,
and we must get government approval to defend
ourselves, and only defend ourselves
in the way the government states we can. And
we don't want any defense methods
to be transferable from one person to another.
And kids shouldn't be allowed
to defend themselves."
Of course, they don't say it
THAT way. They say "we want government registration of
handguns." "We demand trigger
locks be sold with every gun." "We want every gun
owner to be licensed by the
government." "We want to compel smart guns." "We
want a Juvenile Brady bill."
Gun control isn't just unconstitutional. Gun control isn't just a bad idea.
Gun control is unnatural. It
is against nature. People don't act like that. No creature on
earth acts like that. Regardless
of your religious belief, regardless of whether you think we
have a soul or spirit or not,
you must concede that however we came to be here, and
whatever else we are, we are
in animal form, and we have animal instincts, and one of
those animal instincts is the
instinct, the duty, to protect ourselves, our family, our friends
and neighbors, and our property
from harm. And we would not have flourished as a species
without that natural instinct.
Now some of these "Million
Mugger enabling Meddlers" will ask me "Liz, do you want
your six year old girl to handle
firearms? Your sixteen year old boy? Aren't you afraid of
having a gun in your house because
of that?"
I'll be frank with you. Given
the penchant for child molesters and child rapists, I frankly
would get my kids to a shooting
range at early an age as possible so that they may
familiarize themselves with
that means of self-defense, as well as familiarizing them with
other self-defense methods.
I frankly would rather my child have a piece concealed and
know how to use it in today's
world. I would probably give him one. I probably wouldn't let
him go to a public school where
he couldn't carry it.
Which brings me to the point.
The "Million Mugger enabling Meddlers" would have my full
support if they were, like Mothers
Against Drunk Drivers, demanding stiffer criminal
penalties for physical assaults
against children.
But the "Million Mom March" is
doing the opposite. They aren't trying to make it safe for
my kid to walk the street. They're
actually setting up situations where my family might be
rendered defenseless against
these same thugs. Howso?
Everything they propose.... EVERYTHING....
is aimed against me protecting myself and
my family protecting itself,
not for it. Forget the Constitution for a second. Forget
the country for a second. A
waiting period denies me for the length of the waiting
period my access to self -defense
and defense of my family. Permit and licensing
requirements do the same thing:
delay and prevent my natural instinct for self-defense. Age
requirements: same thing. Saying
a teenage girl is legally prohibited from carrying a firearm
is like giving a child snatcher
free license at her.
What about trigger locks, Liz?
Surely you can't be against mandating trigger locks? But it's
the same thing. A trigger lock
places an assailee at a distinct disadvantage. Crimes don't
happen in days. They happen
in seconds. Suddenly. Every second is precious in a
self-defense and a trigger lock
costs precious seconds and might disable the firearm
entirely.
But enough of this folderol.
Forget how many votes you have or think you need. Forget
your interpretation of the Constitution.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME HOW I
AM TO DEFEND MYSELF OR MY FAMILY.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL MY
NEIGHBORHOOD HOW IT IS TO DEFEND
ITSELF. None. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. No
STUPID LITTLE LAW you pass against
us will ever negate that natural God-given right
and instinct. Deal with that.
The gun control people, in my
opinion, have crossed a line in the sand. This ceased to be a
civilized discussion long ago.
This is a matter of self-protection. A matter of turf. If you are
in favor of restricting the
citizen's right to self-defense and defense of her family, then you
are on the side of the criminals.
Either you believe an individual has a right to defend against
an assailant unhampered by stupid
little laws, or you are on the side of criminals. And if
you believe in using the power
of the state to come down on me for protecting myself
or my family, then both you
and the state that does that are criminals. YES! YOU!
And I'm here to tell you, on
behalf of many many Americans with families, that we will
have none of it any longer.
Million Mom March supporters, what you advocate, if you
succeed, will be a prelude to
revolution. That is neither a threat nor a promise. That is
natural law. We will not take
these stupid little laws aimed at us any longer. We will, like a
mother lioness defending her
turf and her cubs, use any means necessary. Ultimately,
whether you want it or not,
natural law will assert itself. Deal with it.
Copyright, 2000, LizMichael.com,
www.lizmichael.com Permission to reprint
granted so long as the web site
and the copyright remains referenced. No exclusivity may be retained by
any
individual or press entity which
reprints.
