Campaign for the natural right to self-defense.

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. <br>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.<br><br>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. <br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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".<br><br>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.<br><br><br>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.<br><br><br><span style="font-size: 9px; line-height: normal">*sorry if my text is a bit of a mess, i'm feeling awfully tired today.</span>

 

<span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: normal"><strong>The petition:</strong></span><br><br>This petition aims to defend the right of all human beings, Belgian citizens in this case, to defend<br> 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:<br><br>- Allow all black powder weapons to remain in free-sale to those over 18.<br><br>- Legalize the free sale of all firearms whose energy does not exceed 7.5 joules to those over <br>18.<br><br>- 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.<br><br>- 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. <br><br>- 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.<br><br>- Repeal all firearm storage laws in order to allow the use of legally-held weapons in self-defense.<br><br>- Repeal the laws preventing law-abiding people from being allowed to defend their property.<br><br>- 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".<br><br>- Add the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense to the constitution.<br><br><br><br>I have three questions pertaining to my petition:<br><br>1. do you believe it's properly worded? does it get the point across?<br>2. how should i "publicize" this petition? is 1000 signatures a realistic figure?<br>3. are all the points reasonable? what could be changed?

 

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). <br>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.<br>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.<br><br>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).<br><br>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).<br><br><br><br><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
<tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>Bert the Welder wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">
<br>Not fishing for an argument, but really?!?!?! You can't be serious......</td></tr>
</table>
<span class="postbody"><br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br><br>Update: I modified the petition.</span>

 

<span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: normal"><strong>My pepper spray petition:</strong></span><br><br><a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/legalisepepperspray/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/legalisepepperspray/</a>

 

Very well said, theshadow_razor!<br><br>The fact that everyone is equal when faced with a gun is exactly why i believe <u>all</u> sane and responsible individuals must be allowed to own firearms specifically for self-defense.<br><br>Restricting the right to self-defense is an extremely severe violation of human dignity for the two following reasons:<br><br>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. <br>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. <br>Thus, restricting a human beings right to self-preservation is tantamount to lowering his status to <i><u>below that of an animal</u></i>.<br><br>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".<br>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.<br>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.<br><br>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">

 

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
<tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>Bert the Welder wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">Any automatic assault rifles, band, they aren't needed anywhere by the public.</td></tr>
</table>
<span class="postbody"><br><br><br><br><div align="justify">1. I disagree, any responsible individual who has taken an extensive training course and passed a <i><u>very strict</u></i> exam should be allowed to own <u><i>select-fire/automatic</i></u> 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.<br><br>2. There is no such thing as an "assault rifle" as "assault" is a <i><u>verb</u></i> intentionally chosen by the prohibitionists for it's negative connotations; The correct <i><u>adjective</u></i> terms are "select-fire rifle" or "automatic rifle" depending on the exact type of weapon.</div></span>

 

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

 

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

 

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
<tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>Failureisalwaysanoption wrote:</b></span></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>
<span class="postbody"><br><br>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.</span>

 

Thanks for your support, failureisalwaysanoption!<br><br>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.