“We can either live in a paranoid politically correct world frantically trying not to offend the Hitlers and Mohammeds, and blaming their victims when they kill, or we can be free men and women who have chosen to take the power to defend our rights into our own hands.

While a thousand organizations use the Holocaust as a platform for speeches about tolerance, Children Of Jewish Holocaust Survivors [Jews Can Shoot] is conducting firearms training… Freedom is not defended with empty idealism easily perverted into appeasement of evil, but with the force of arms.”

Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish blog

All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece... If a few hundred Jewish fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Silveira v. Lockyer, 2003

Habah l'hargecha hashkem l'hargo -- "If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first."

Second Amendment

An Interesting Duty to Retreat (or Duty to Avoid Trouble?) Case, from a Century Ago

by Doris Wise Montrose on December 27, 2020

“Under the stand your ground approach, you don’t lose your legal right to use deadly force in self-defense. The theory is that you shouldn’t have to surrender your right to remain where you lawfully are just because a criminal is threatening you.”

Apropos the stand-your-ground vs. duty-to-retreat debate, I thought I’d pass along an interesting case that illustrates how duty to retreat might work. Recall that, under a duty to retreat, if

you are threatened with death, serious bodily injury, or some other serious crime, and
you can avoid the danger by retreating with complete safety
from some place other than your home (even though you’re legally present in that place),
but you don’t retreat, and instead use deadly force to defend yourself,

then you lose your legal right to use deadly force in self-defense. The theory behind that is that you should have avoided the danger instead of using deadly force.

Under the stand your ground approach, you don’t lose your legal right to use deadly force in self-defense. The theory is that you shouldn’t have to surrender your right to remain where you lawfully are just because a criminal is threatening you.

By Eugene Volokh

Signs Suggest Walmart to Turn Over Customer 4473 Gun Records to ATF

Kimber Arms moving headquarters from New York to Troy, creating 366 Alabama jobs

"All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. ... If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars." — Silveira v Lockyer, (9th Cir. 2003) (Kozinski, J. dissenting.)