Campaign for the natural right to self-defense.

ultimatelizardman · Feb 11, 2013

Belgium is a dangerous country; i have been robbed three times in broad daylight (once at knife-point), i have been threatened by a youth gang and i have witnessed a brutal attack against a delivery driver committed by thugs armed with metal poles. Things will only get worse, considering that a government which has openly shown it's support for criminals and complete lack of respect for victims is now beginning to use high-profile crimes committed with illegal weapons to gain public support for their natural-right violating laws. The natural right to self-defense has been under attack for too long in Belgium, where citizens have been banned from owning as little as pepper spray or a tazer to protect their lives and where defense of property has been virtually outlawed. Now, with the Belgian government threatening to ban the ownership of black powder weapons to all who do not possess a license (whose obtention procedure will most likely be prohibitive) i feel that the natural rights of citizens are in very serious danger. I wanted to talk to you guys on this subject so that, if anyone is interested, we may find a way to organize a campaign seeking to preserve the right of all human beings to defend their lives and properties, and, although this mainly concerns Belgians i would like to hear what those who live in other nations have to say on this subject. My proposition would be to start a petition, looking for a minimum of 1000 signatures, whose aims are the prevention of the ban on the free sale of black powder weapons, legalizing the free sale of all firearms whose energy does not exceed 7.5 joules (those who use flobert rounds) to those over 18, legalizing the free sale of devices designed to discharge an irritant for the purpose of self-defense, abolishing the law that allows the police to arrest people for carrying an item they consider a weapon (i heard of someone being arrested for carrying a maglite torch), legalizing the free sale of all types of cold weapons to those over 18 and relaxing firearm laws in order to allow the possession of rimfire rifles, certain rimfire handguns and some shotguns without need for a license or a "legitimate motive". I'm perfectly aware of the fact that those demands will not all be met, and that they will most likely be aggressively opposed, but i would be overjoyed if only one of my ideas was put into effect; for example if self-defense with pepper spray or the free sale of low-energy firearms was to be legalized. I have also considered starting a self-defense forum for Belgian citizens, if such a thing does not exist already (my searches in english, french and dutch all proved unfruitful), and i would like to know if anyone here has any advice on how to do so. *sorry if my text is a bit of a mess, i'm feeling awfully tired today.

ultimatelizardman · Feb 13, 2013

The petition: This petition aims to defend the right of all human beings, Belgian citizens in this case, to defend their well-being, to live their lives free from illegitimate intrusion and to own firearms for lawful purposes without being subject to prejudice and/or irrational restrictions. In order to do so, this petition has been started with the following goals in mind: - Allow all black powder weapons to remain in free-sale to those over 18. - Legalize the free sale of all firearms whose energy does not exceed 7.5 joules to those over 18. - Legalize the free sale of batons and devices designed to discharge an irritant or an electrical current for the purpose of self-defense, to those over 16. - Consolidate the "sport shooting license" and the "hunting license" into a single "restricted firearm license", whose obtention would be subject to a very strict background check and an extensive written competency test. - Allow the purchase and ownership, without need for any license or "legitimate motive", of all non-repeating shotguns whose total length is either equal to or exceeds 65 cm, all rimfire firearms whose total length is either equal to or exceeds 65 cm with a shot capacity which can not exceed 5 rounds without the use of a detachable magazine, all single-shot rimfire firearms whose total length is inferior to 65 cm and all detachable magazines for rimfire firearms whose total length is either equal to or exceeds 65 cm which can hold no more than 5 rounds. All rimfire magazines allowing for a capacity of more than 5 rounds and all shotgun slugs of any caliber would still require a restricted firearm license to buy and own. If purchased without a license all aforementioned weapons would have the buyer be subject to strict psychological and criminal background checks. One should be at least 18 years old to purchase these weapons. - Repeal all firearm storage laws in order to allow the use of legally-held weapons in self-defense. - Repeal the laws preventing law-abiding people from being allowed to defend their property. - Repeal the law that allows the police to arrest people for carrying everyday items they consider to be weapons if the owner cannot supply a "legitimate motive". - Add the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense to the constitution. I have three questions pertaining to my petition: 1. do you believe it's properly worded? does it get the point across? 2. how should i "publicize" this petition? is 1000 signatures a realistic figure? 3. are all the points reasonable? what could be changed?

Bert the Welder · Feb 15, 2013

While I sympathize with the sentiment of what your trying to do, guns just don't help. Hunting rifles should be legal, with proper certificate of training and lots of paperwork. Hand guns and repeater rifles should be banded everywhere and penalties jacked up for those that get caught with them. If you legalize guns for good people, you legalize them for the bad too. I do agree you should be able to defend yourself from harm using any means necessary. Knives up to 3" blade, short defense sticks, S.S., sock with a pool ball in it. As long as you are defending yourself or another from physical harm. I hate conflict and physical confrontations, but I'm fortunate to be quite good at them. Having formerly worked as a doorman at a club, I prefer to compel someone to leave, then remove them physically. It's better for everyone. Situations, like you mentioned with robberies and assaults with knives and pipes is much better than if they had a gun. Usually pulling out pepper spray will be enough of a deterrent to most assholes carrying knives and pipes. One has to get up close to be effective with those. With guns, they don't. They have a nice big hoola-hoop of personal space that you can do nothing about. Also, people do tend to be not as aware of their surroundings as they should be. Prevention is the best defense. Gang of kids is a real problem because they get more jacked up then they otherwise would if they were singular. Hosing them down with pepper spray usually does a treat for making it obvious you're a bad target. You whip out a fire arm, you set off a chain reaction of panic and stupidity. Classic example: guy pulls a gun to rob you or whatever. You pull yours. These actions are combined always with yelling. This yelling gets the attention of those around you. They see two guys with guns. They pull out their guns. But who do they point at? who's "the good guy"? I'd hate to be a "black" guy in the defensive position in this situation if the robber guy is white or asian. Brother is gonna get shot at the most. Guaranteed if he's in rural white town USA. But lets say both are *******. Now, we have the two original gun holders and 1. 2. maybe 3 others pointing guns. and those people are swinging back and forth wildly nervous because there are 5 people with guns, now all frantically looking around because they don't know who the "bad guy" is. Adding to this is screaming and crying and people scurrying about everywhere, making the whole situation an absolute shit storm. Everyone stands there, shaking in their boots, waiting for the cops to show up? Who in this mess is gonna be the "hero" and set off this powder keg? Which one of these hero's has their trigger tuned so light, because uncle Ted said so, that a fort would set it off? How many of these idiots actually have their finger resting on the trigger? Who forget to switch of the safety? Then when the cops do show up, who do they point at? You think they are going to listen to anything any of these fools have to say? This is the delusion of carrying. It does nothing but cause more deaths. Guy pulls a knife, you got a shit load of options. Not to mention if you are in that same crowd. Hopefully there are a couple guys willing to back you up, making the piece of shit with the knife piss off. Better yet, jackass gets surrounded, disarmed and has the piss knocked out of him. Anyhow, I would encourage thinking a bit more big picture. It's disappointing to hear things like this are happening in your community. I always held you Europeans in high regard for your ability to act more decently in public than the average North American.

Bert the Welder · Feb 15, 2013

Jesus christ! Sorry for the ramble!!!! Hope that didn't sound to righteous! Please excuse me as I'm on a mania high. I'm manic depressive and the last three days have been pretty intense to say the least. Feel like I'm on speed and snorting coffee. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

JoergS · Feb 15, 2013

My opinion regarding gun laws is simple. The fascination for guns and weapons is a part of many people. In some (maybe 5%), it is so strong that they will get arms, no matter if legal or not. So banning all guns won't help at all. A country needs to find a good compromise that will make it possible to legally own powerful guns, but on the other hand controlling access to guns that are ideal for terrible things like amok runs. My personal compromise would be to legalize double barrel shotguns. Very powerful, huge bandwidth of rounds (all the way from bean bags to slugs) and pretty useless for crime. When I say "legalize", this means that you still need a license. You have to prove that you are competent, have a clean criminal record and have a safe place to store the gun and ammo. But other than that, it should not require any specific reason to own a shotgun. No need to be a member of a shooting club or a hunter, whatever. But the gun would be registered. If you need any other gun (assault rifle, long range hunting rifle or handgun), then you have to come up with the proper reason. My two cents.

Bert the Welder · Feb 15, 2013

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
<tr><td>JoergS wrote:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote"> and pretty useless for crime. </td></tr>
</table>
 Not fishing for an argument, but really?!?!?! You can't be serious......

ultimatelizardman · Feb 15, 2013

I disagree, non-repeating shotguns and certain rimfire weapons should be legal to own without need for a license, registration or "legitimate motive", instead they should only require the buyer to be subject to a background check prior to the purchase of each such weapon (if he is not in possession of a firearms license). In order to prevent the illegal use of such weapons; any history of serious violence, illegal drug use or unresolved high-risk mental disorders becoming apparent as a result of the background check would permanently bar one from owning any kind of firearm. Also, "safe storage" laws help the criminals by making it hard, if not impossible, to access your firearms in a high-stress home-defense scenario. As for carrying weapons in public, everyone over the age of 16 should be allowed to buy, own and carry pepper spray, batons and "stun guns" for self-defense, but i believe one should have to aquire a permit obtained by passing strict background checks and competency tests in order to carry a firearm, as is the case in the Czech Republic (whose violent crime rates are far lower than those of Belgium and the UK). Note: I strongly disagree with registration because it has no proven effect on crime and allows criminal governments to easily disarm law-abiding citizens (as has been the case many times throughout history). <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
<tr><td>Bert the Welder wrote:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">
 Not fishing for an argument, but really?!?!?! You can't be serious......</td></tr>
</table>
 Almost all criminals would prefer a cheap but deadly machete, a very cheap and easily concealable knife or an illegally-purchased handgun to an expensive and unwieldy long gun with limited firepower. Also, it is worse to be attacked with a knife than with a firearm, the lethality rate of gunshot wounds is 12.5% compared to 14.7% for those caused by edged weapons. Update: I modified the petition.

ultimatelizardman · Feb 25, 2013

My pepper spray petition: <a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/legalisepepperspray/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/legalisepepperspray/</a>

theshadow_razor · Mar 15, 2013

"As long as you are defending yourself or another from physical harm. I hate conflict and physical confrontations, but I'm fortunate to be quite good at them." I think the key here is that statement ^^^^ Not everyone is quite good at, or capable of fighting off knife wielding attackers. Not long ago, here in the U.S, an elderly woman was backed into her bedroom by a rapist, who didn't know that she kept a loaded .22 in her nightstand by her bed. She managed to get the handgun and shoot her attacker before he was able to abuse her. Her attacker did not die, but was taken to the hospital, recovered, and is now in jail. The woman was not hurt. And I believe it would have been a very different outcome if she only had a knife. Guns do not make you "safe" any more then a sword made a Roman soldier "safe" in the heart of battle. But a Roman soldier in battle WITHOUT a sword would be pretty ridiculous. If you are sane, and not a violent criminal, and are legally mature enough to drive a car without trouble, I don't see why you cannot also own a handgun. Provided you have no major criminal record, and are not insane, or, I would add, on any medications which might cause you to act out if you suddenly went off them.... Handguns DO give criminals an edge. But they give civilians an edge we never had before the handgun was invented. That edge is that a 70 something year-old woman, can defend herself from a rapist. And a 80 year old man can fend of 3 or 4 young men armed with baseball bats at his front door. (That happened lately too, bunch of thugs attacked an old Vet in his own home, and they had baseball bats.... The cowards ganged up on the man, who, had a loaded gun in one of his other rooms, and he was armed within seconds, and none of the young men made it inside.) None of them died either, he shot one, and the others fled. The one that was shot ended up in the hospital, and then jail. Guns are a double edged sword, *just like knives and slingshots* If the good guys can use them, the bad guys can do, and probably better. But at least we CAN use them. I would hate to live in a country where only the bad guys were armed, and defending others was outlawed. But that is just my opinion on the matter.

ultimatelizardman · Mar 15, 2013

Very well said, theshadow_razor! The fact that everyone is equal when faced with a gun is exactly why i believe all sane and responsible individuals must be allowed to own firearms specifically for self-defense. Restricting the right to self-defense is an extremely severe violation of human dignity for the two following reasons: 1. Restricting the right to self-defense by law is an extremely serious crime against life itself, due to the fact that it's a violation of the most basic right common to all living beings; self-preservation. After all, even mere animals can use their claws, fangs, poisons, tails, horns or other weapons against an aggressor in an attempt to assure their survival, without needing to ask for permission beforehand nor needing to justify the act of self-preservation afterwards. Thus, restricting a human beings right to self-preservation is tantamount to lowering his status to below that of an animal. 2. Forbidding the weak to possess a means of defense against the strong is a form of eugenics. The result is a profoundly barbaric society where the value of a human being's life is based on his age and genetics, ignoring or oppressing those whose traits the general public deem "undesirable" and/or "abnormal". These types of societies are ruled by brutal criminals and feral youths who can literally get away with murder, whilst productive and law-abiding members of society live in perpetual fear for their well-being. The most tragic aspect of this type of society is that the vast majority of law-abiding individuals are either too distracted to see what's going on or have been brainwashed by the media/education system/other sources of propaganda to the point that they have become completely delusional and start spewing the same lies. Humans, the only species capable of organized, socially-enforced self-destruction... <img src="http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_cry.gif" alt="Crying or Very sad" longdesc="11"><img src="http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_pale.gif" alt="pale" longdesc="26">

Bert the Welder · Mar 15, 2013

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
<tr><td>theshadow_razor wrote:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">"As long as you are defending yourself or another from physical harm. I hate conflict and physical confrontations, but I'm fortunate to be quite good at them." I think the key here is that statement ^^^^ Not everyone is quite good at, or capable of fighting off knife wielding attackers. Not long ago, here in the U.S, an elderly woman was backed into her bedroom by a rapist, who didn't know that she kept a loaded .22 in her nightstand by her bed. She managed to get the handgun and shoot her attacker before he was able to abuse her. Her attacker did not die, but was taken to the hospital, recovered, and is now in jail. The woman was not hurt. And I believe it would have been a very different outcome if she only had a knife.</td></tr>
</table>
 Sorry, just reread my post with a straight mind ( mania is a bitch!!! ). I mistyped/spoke/ was not clear. I meant band from carrying everywhere as in out in public. Sorry, really should have been clearer. I'll make myself/position more clear: True hunting rifles: Licensed, mandatory training and rechecks at regular periods( say every five years) not carried open in public areas. Must be locked up at home. Any automatic assault rifles, band, they aren't needed anywhere by the public. Hand guns, licensed, training, rechecks, not to be moved off your property but for training/licensing purposes. Must be kept in a secure location in the home but not hinder access in the event of an emergency. If someone breaks into your home, they are a threat to you. Fuck'm. blow their head off. Electrocute them. What ever. They're fair game if they threaten you. I'm know the most trusting person in the world. You get tough and to close I'm going to preemptively put you down. In the true big picture, this wouldn't happen if people weren't "forced" into committing the crime in the first place. It would eliminate this discussion altogether. This isn't a "right" or "left" theory, it's just fact. And in the case of the US, it's a really problem. But, that's a bottomless pit of a discussion and I don't want to get into it here. SS channel is a nice refuge in the sea of shit on the web. So, I apologize for my poor choice of words in the previous post. My disorder can be treacherous at times, so please forgive. I do try to read everything I write two or three times before posting but sometimes the bad wiring just doesn't allow clarity.

ultimatelizardman · Mar 15, 2013

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
<tr><td>Bert the Welder wrote:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">Any automatic assault rifles, band, they aren't needed anywhere by the public.</td></tr>
</table>
 <div align="justify">1. I disagree, any responsible individual who has taken an extensive training course and passed a very strict exam should be allowed to own select-fire/automatic weapons. To be considered responsible an individual must have no criminal record, no history of serious mental illness, no history of drug abuse, no dishonorable discharge from an armed-service and no history of mind-altering medication use for a minimum of 3 years, said individual must also either have owned other types of firearms responsibly for a minimum of 5 years or have served a minimum of 3 years with an armed-service. 2. There is no such thing as an "assault rifle" as "assault" is a verb intentionally chosen by the prohibitionists for it's negative connotations; The correct adjective terms are "select-fire rifle" or "automatic rifle" depending on the exact type of weapon.</div>

ultimatelizardman · Mar 28, 2013

Update: I designed two cards with pro-self-defense messages i could distribute to get the main message across. <img src="http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t362/ultimatelizardman/self_defense_card_02_zps85b9e472.jpg" border="0" alt=""> <img src="http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t362/ultimatelizardman/self_defense_card_01_zps6691fa6d.jpg" border="0" alt=""> Questions: - What do you guys think i could improve about them? - What would be the best way to distribute them? - I'm sure i made many spelling errors, it would be nice if you guys could point them out so i can correct them ASAP.

FIAAO · Mar 28, 2013

I think it looks good, but maybe you should write "non-lethal" instead of "less-lethal". It is not a big change, but it makes the non-lethal weapons seem less dangerous.

onnod · Mar 28, 2013

yep, and maybe some more outstanding stuff, people are lazy you know, if they have to read to much they'll skip

ultimatelizardman · Mar 28, 2013

Thanks for the help, failureisalwaysanoption and onnod! However, I don't understand what you mean by "outstanding stuff", can you please explain?

onnod · Mar 28, 2013

some highlighted stuf to quickly show what you want, you now have a title, but some subtitles will quickly show what you want to tell people

ultimatelizardman · Mar 29, 2013

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
<tr><td>Failureisalwaysanoption wrote:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">I think it looks good, but maybe you should write "non-lethal" instead of "less-lethal". It is not a big change, but it makes the non-lethal weapons seem less dangerous.</td></tr>
</table>
 The big problem with this idea is that those who attack the right to self-defense are often mentally unstable (if not outright delusional) and will not hesitate to lie, manipulate and slander to get their way; i don't want to give them a chance to attack my campaign on the grounds of semantics nor do i want them to be able to twist my words, as such i must be strictly honest and judiciously select the terms and statistical data i wish to use throughout my campaign.

FIAAO · Mar 29, 2013

Oh, I see... I dont think I have said this yet, but it is very admirable by you to work so hard for this, keep up the good work!

ultimatelizardman · Apr 4, 2013

Thanks for your support, failureisalwaysanoption! I thought of making another card which would compare the murder (aswell as general violent crime) rates of countries with lax/permissive arms laws and those with restrictive/prohibitive arms laws, in order to prove that the right to armed self-defense effectively deters violent crime.

Campaign for the natural right to self-defense.

Member

Member

Premium Member

Premium Member

Premium Member

Premium Member

Member

Member

Registered

Member

Premium Member

Member

Member

Failureisalwaysanoption

Im from Holland, isnt that weird?

Member

Im from Holland, isnt that weird?

Member

Failureisalwaysanoption

Member