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 particpating 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 transferrable 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 govenment 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 molestors 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 damned Constitution for a second. Forget the damned 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 falderal. 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. Notta. 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 website and the copyright remains referenced. No exclusivity may be retained by any individual or press entity which reprints.    

SellOut: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment
by David P. Schippers, Alan P. Henry

While no one came out of the Monica Lewinsky scandal looking good, David Schippers, the chief investigative counsel for the Clinton impeachment, wants to be sure Americans know just who contributed to the debacle and how. A trial attorney and a Democrat, Schippers was hired by Republican congressman Henry Hyde to lead an oversight investigation of the Justice Department, then was redirected to handle the impeachment. The quintessential honest man, Schippers was shocked, not so much by Clinton's actions (which he calls a far-reaching conspiracy to obstruct justice with perjury, lies, and witness tampering), but by Republican and Democratic politicians who sold out the impeachment process.

If you ever want to vote again, you might not want to know what went on behind the scenes in the Capitol Hill meat grinder leading up to and during the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton.... Lies, cowardice, hypocrisy, cynicism, amorality, butt-covering--these were the squalid political body parts that, squeezed through the political processor, combined to make a mockery of the impeachment process.

Of course, Schippers does want you to know what happened, and he also wants you to vote--against those who made the mess. And so he names names--of Republican senators who refused to allow evidence on the floor, of the five Democratic congressmen who never examined the evidence, of the GOP senator who said, "You're not going to dump this garbage on us," and also of the politicians who did an honest job, or at least asked reasonable questions (such as Joseph Lieberman). Schippers also reveals the evidence he was building against the Clinton administration regarding illegal INS actions and Chinagate, but that he was forced to drop. He reviews the successful struggle to get a full hearing in the House and the "flat-out rigged ball game" in the Senate. He discusses the president's pattern of abuse and intimidation of women, including some highly disturbing information regarding Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and Dolly Kyle Browning.

Most of the documents related to the impeachment are still sealed, so Schippers's story is more diatribe than new information. Perhaps what this book confirms most (besides the ugly, self-serving side of politics) is the chasm between those trying Clinton, who firmly believed that his lying was destroying the structure of government, and those who felt that lying about sex was nobody's business. Schippers is clearly in the first camp: "I do not care what you are lying about. If you're the President of the United States and you lie under oath, you should be removed from office."

Dumbing Down : Essays on the Strip Mining of American Culture
by Katharine Washburn, John F. Thornton, John Simon

The idea that American culture is entering a great age of stupidity is something we hear everyday, but what distinguishes this collection of essays on that theme is the diversity of the commentators, the damage they survey, and the wit exhibited in their reports. Noted essayist Phillip Lopate reports on Hollywood as afraid or merely unwilling to present characters who happen to be intelligent; Ken Kalfus writes about how Star Trek exhibits took the place of real science at the esteemed Hayden Planetarium; and Jonathan Rosen offers a controversial essay arguing that tragedy is trivialized by such institutions as the Holocaust Museum. But the effect of the book is not depressing, but rather hopeful, in the sense that problems must be identified before they can be fixed.