ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Dearest Mugger,

Updated on August 15, 2012

Gun lookin-at-cha

by JR Hager II
by JR Hager II | Source

At first , in this letter, I had wanted to apologize to your parents, namely your mother, if she’s the one doing your laundry. The mess you were in, when you came home that night five years ago, was no doubt a memorable one. But then I had second thoughts, it is her, I concluded after all this time, that owes me a heap of gratitude - that is if you arn’t already dead. No, if it wern’t for me, my girlfriend would have probably gone too far that night and put you in the ground sooner. No doubt you remember her ...

Niki lived in Atlanta all her life and has been street wise ever since I met her in Pittsburgh at the Art Institute. It was one of her many attributes I found appealing. Aside from being tall, good looking black woman with a great laugh and a super talented designer, she was a ‘bottom-line’ type of gal. I always knew where I stood with her, and as we’ve gotten close, I knew where she stood on allot of issues. There was nothing to hide with Niki, everything was on the table or there wasn’t a table. She didn’t have allot of friends, most couldn’t handle her candor, but the ones she had were true. I’m proud to be one of them, and glad, very glad that I was with her that night in Little Five Points, and not with somebody else.

My  Y o u T u b e  Channel

... you called her ‘sister’ after you drew your blade, and did your mugger thing as the streets taught you, or rather, as you let them teach you. You did have a choice, you know. But hopefully you didn't make the same mistake twice, and do the same thing a few nights after our encounter. Because there might not be a good-hearted person among them. But I don't think you did, the expression in your face, the tears in your eyes and shaking like a leaf. Then you fell on your knees when she showed you what was in her purse, besides money, and she said, "Your not my brother. You are scum and deserve to be put out ..." When she pulled back the hammer of her shiny new silver 38, I knew I had to say something. Luckily I did or I fear she would have squeezed a few off. There wasn't anybody else around and it was dark and devoid of any street lights where we were. "Niki, lets not ruin our lives here, tonight," is what stopped her.

She didn’t spend allot of time in this part of the city and advised we went somewhere else for dinner. She called it ‘the drug side of town,’ but I had never eaten Jamaican food and according to her this place, called Chicken Jerk, was the best in town, “unless my Ma be cooking it.” Her family was originally from Jamaica. She first offered to make it for me herself, but eating this food so much while she was growing up she hardly had the stomach for it any longer, and rarely ate it. She had a burger and salad to my 'house special.' Considering all that followed, we should have gone to Lenix Mall first and eaten there; where we had planned on going afterwords. She wanted to unleash her extravagance on me as she usually does when we get together. Her expenditures most of which was equal or exceeded the flight down here from Pennsylvania.

"I wasn't going to kill him, but my blood was up", she told me later, as to why she fired off a round anyway. "Just wanted to teach him a lesson." The bullet is probably still in that oak tree if you want to look for it. Can't remember the name of the street, but I guess you know it by heart and had possibly checked it out soon after it happened. I don't know, and don't really know what you've learned from that night, I only want to tell you - I've learned allot from that night; namely and quite blatantly, I've learned that we can never count on the police, and always count on yourself, that is, if you are protected.

And another thing I thought of in this time, if you still exist at all; you're parents shouldn't be all that thankful for me, they should be more thankful for the second amendment of the constitution. Because if it wasn't for this law Niki couldn't have had a gun, and you could have. And you most-likely would be doing the same thing, or in prison, or dead or whatever.

Well, I just wanted to let you know, dear mugger, that we can be thankful that you only shit your pants that night. It could have been worse. For you and your mother.

Best regards,


And, PS, if your wondering about Niki, I just got back from her funeral. I guess she wasn't street-smart enough. It was a night she was out with her family, and just didn't bother to bring it. I'll miss her. What a gal !

From a guy in Florida:

My neighbor is a "lefty" of sorts (Obama bumper stickers, gung-ho socialized medicine, "guns should be banned", etc.).

So this past spring I put this sign up in my yard after one of his anti-gun rants at a neighborhood cocktail party.

The sign wasn't up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me take down the sign.

Fortunately, the officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take such action without a court order and that he had to file a complaint "downtown" first, which would be reviewed by the city attorney to see if it violated any city, county, or state ordinances, which if there was a violation a court order would be sent to the offending party (me) to "remove the sign in seven days."

After several weeks he was informed that the sign was legal (by a quarter of an inch) and there was nothing the city could do, which obviously made him madder.

I tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friends at the hunt club but that seemed to
make him even more angry.

I am at a loss how to reconcile our long relationship (notice I did not say friendship), any suggestions would be welcome.

Anyway, that's life in our neck of the woods, how about yours?

BUTTE , MONTANA Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders...

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.

It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.

When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.

Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........?

An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins, She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control!

Will Missouri Nullify Federal Gun Laws?

Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1230) – prefiled for the 2010 legislative session. The bill “Asserts the right of the State of Missouri to regulate the intrastate use and acquisition of certain firearms pursuant to the reserved powers of the state over intrastate commerce and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

While the bill’s title focuses solely federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s mandate that powers not delegated to the federal government are “reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.” It states:

Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Missouri certain powers as they were understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United State

Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. (Click here to see the full list)

There’s been no lack of controversy surrounding these laws, either. The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law virtually null and void.

While some advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

Copyright © 2009 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Gun is Civilization

 The Gun is Civilization
 by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

 Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
 In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
 When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
 The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
 There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
 People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
 Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
 The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
 When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
 By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.