911 Busy Signal? Try Congress.
In Long Beach, California, several girls were beaten viciously by a group of people. The girls are white and they were reminded of that during the beatings. Some of the girls and bystanders reportedly got a busy signal when trying to call Police. A lot of that going around.
In her November 8, 2006 piece in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, Councilwoman Rae Gabelich encourages readers to ‘Trust the process and know that the safety of all Long Beach citizens is our No. 1 priority.’
As many liberty enthusiasts understand, hers is an after-the-fact solution and not especially respectful of during-the-fact authority. In the interest of the constituents, this is counter-productive. No, oppositional.
In other stories, abductions continue across the nation, including school campuses, with reports of a high school teacher taken as bystanders did not intervene, but dialed 911 instead. The teacher was found some time later, but this was not the case for other abductees. Often it is an unhappy ending for all.
What to do during-the-fact?
Lately, it’s been mentioned how you can’t reach Police directly on a cell phone because it hooks you up with the local Highway Patrol. If you subscribe to certain online Internet telephone service, you can’t reach 911 directly from there at all. And, of course, if you’re reporting an emergency in another jurisdiction, you have to wait even longer.
And of course, the leftist recommendation to give them what they want is counter-intuitive: what if it’s you they want? In the case of many beatings, it’s the girls they want. Or the high school teacher. Or the child.
Alright, let’s think: Now what?
I’ve said in my book Transfer of Wealth and as a Paramedic, I’ve known for more than twenty years that 911 has bugs in it. On talkradio in 1982, I’d said that 911 has bugs in it. It still does, filled with scandals of sleepy operators, belligerent ones, too, busy signals, over-questioning as part of a priority dispatch process, and a general burn-out of operators.
The actual underlying issue is compelled reliance on others versus reliance on self the way the country was meant to be. Against this value, against the nation herself, the move is on to transfer your wealth – your liberty, freedom of action and lawful authority – to officials, who, incidentally, manage the grave situations reactively – after-the-fact. After the damage is done.
In short, you’re on your own. We all are for those critical moments between the development of the emergency and the arrival of assets, if at all. Why do you think some of those 911 operators ask if the patient is breathing and if you know CPR? What if they’re not breathing and you don’t know CPR? Some paramedics were instrumental in implementing those changes in the system. What advice do you get in a criminal emergency?
The very idea emphasizes how you are, in fact, on your own for those critical first moments. The criminal violence emergency is identical to the medical emergency when those first moments are everything.
In remarking on future incidents, the Councilwoman urged citizens to “Call the Police and…Let the police decide if it is of a significant nature.”
Is this not the recommendation of bureaucrats nationwide? Where does that really leave the citizen?
Understand that waiting for police as the Councilwoman urges is the equivalent of doing nothing and of giving them want they want, since the violent aggressors take whether you give it to them or not in the absence of resistance.
This is not a debate about protecting belongings, it is a debate about protecting people, our greatest asset in America, and for the citizens, officials need to take the side of the citizens more boldly and more consistently. This requires recognizing citizen authority at such times and recognizing the fact that Police will not always arrive in time.
On recognition of this pre-existing and presently existing citizen authority, fifteen states have activated Stand Your Ground laws on behalf of their constituents. And where this movement is needed the most – as in Washington, D.C., New York and so-called crime-free zones – it is frustrated the most.
Understand that citizens have always possessed this authority, but it has been politically discouraged in many jurisdictions in order to make that transfer of authority – a dependency on official agencies – possible.
The bottom line for these boobs is to give lip service to the problems of violence and to urge surrender of person and possession, which then breeds more violence, and you get the idea. I bet they don’t live that way at night, what with armed personal guards and gated communities.
With the Dems in office now, how will they govern when it comes to our meeting violent crime? What will they urge targeted and stalked citizens to do? How will they solve the problems of city violence, personal violence, revenge and school shootings? I know that some Democrats are so pro-liberty that they are pro-gun. To them, I say Welcome.
But many activists have the ear of other officials who are against righteous citizen resistance, personal authority and citizen use of force at such times.
[This is a mix of many mistaken political notions, such as the idea of taking the law into one’s own hands. Because police are authorized by the People and the individual has the right of self-defense, then the law is already on scene in the custody of the individual who happens to be the target of the aggressor. Why politically discourage this genuine authority? Why, indeed?]
Of those listening to the so-called anti-violence activists, many officials, not all, act politically to discourage use of force in self-defense; I would urge them all to remember that it is not up to officials to disagree with the sovereign and with a civil right; it is down to them to agree and to take the side of the citizen over the aggressor, always. This means letting go of the notion of waiting for police and of giving aggressors what they want in the meantime.
Anarchy? No, genuine individual authority.
Of course, before some take office in January, there’s still time to do the right thing: repeal all gun laws.
Instead of assuring citizens what the Police are doing after-the-fact, it might be much wiser and much more patriotic to remind citizens of their genuine personal authority and civil rights during-the-fact when facing grave danger alone.
Because when you’re on your own, no one can take your place as the lawful and practical first line of defense.
____________________________________
An anti-gun newspaperman admits to his wife that he won’t protect his wife and kids. See the Video, Confession Of Rat at YouTube. Visit www.TransferOfWealth.net
| More from John Longenecker
Stumble It!
November 16th, 2006 at 3:02 am
This country was founded upon “the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God.” (Declaration of Independence, Federalist #43, and many more of the founding documents – http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html). To Wit:
“The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.”
- Thomas Hobbs, ‘Leviathan’, 1651. (Hobbs was studies and quoted by many of the founders; Adams, (all three), Franklin, Henry, Jefferson, Madison, Washington and others).
And, just as is crystal clear in the First Law of Nature, there are NO stipulations or reservations.
Congress has delegated authority over the militia, that is beyond contention. They do NOT, however, have ANY legally dlegated authority over arms in the hands of We The People. In fact, the opposite is true – they are expressly FORBIDDEN. And that restriction on government applies universally; local, state and federal.
Going one step farther; The fed. was charged to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. And, as pointed out by St. George Tucker, in his ‘Blackstone’s Commentaries’; “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty….The right of self-defense is the first law of nature…”
All ‘gun control’ is an “infringement”, and defeats the very purposes that our government(s) were instituted for. It is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but morally peverse as well.
November 16th, 2006 at 3:05 am
Forgive the misspellings!