Be safe, be secure

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Our safety and security first and foremost is down to each and every one of us ourselves and we must get that message across to the governments also and we must take responsibility for it (and be allowed to do so).

People, however, have abdicated their own responsibilities to the government, local and central, and ask for more and more liberties to be taken away from them so that they can feel safer.

Crime prevention is the job of each and every one of us and should not be farmed out to some agency. It used to be that way. The law and its enforcers should only come in as a last resort.

That means that we must deny any potential thief or burglar the opportunity to commit a crime against us and the same goes as far as attacks, such as robberies and muggings are concerned.

Walking about town and country with earplugs in and listening to an MP3 player or iPod not for safety makes. In fact it makes you vulnerable as you are no longer (fully) aware of your surroundings and any potential attacker realizes that as well.

After the leaks, in June 2013, about the NSA and FBI, even in the UK (and elsewhere), spying on people using the Internet the President of the USA, Barack Hussein Obama, states that in order to have the security required people have to be prepared to give up (some of) their freedoms. That is how the powers-that-be have gotten to us already in that people have, as said, abdicated more and more of their freedoms to the governments because they, the people, are not prepared to be responsible for their own security and safety. Not that many governments will even permit that anymore.

In a ruling some years back the US Supreme Court stated that it is not the job of the police to prevent crime but that it is the police's job to enforce the law and this is more and more the case, done by methods the Nazis would have been proud of.

So, if crime prevention is not the task then why the CCTV and all that jazz which is supposedly there to fight crime? Because all that surveillance stuff is only there so they can spy on the people.

In a statement a US official said that they are not using CCTV and other methods to spy on all American but only on anti-government Americans. And how precisely are the cameras and other electronic eavesdropping devices distinguish between a “good” and a “bad” American? Think, people, think. Government does not have our safety and security at heart with all those measures but the total control of the people.

The protection of ourselves and that of our loved ones rests with us and we must wrest the powers back from the governments in order to be able to provide for ourselves in this, and other, departments.

The state is not our friend when it comes to safety and security; the opposite rather. More and more the state is reducing our own ability to defend ourselves more and more under the guise of needing to provide security and safety for all, by more and more methods of control over the means at our disposal.

A people who can, and who are prepared to, take care of themselves are a threat to the powers-that-be, that is to say the state and those that rule from behind the smokescreen, and it is for that reason that any attempt of the people to do things for themselves is being undermined.

A free people have the right and the duty to defend themselves and to look after their own affairs without anyone lording it over them. However, the people themselves, in the majority, have abdicated their rights to the governments by demanding more and more protection which they, the people, are not prepared to provide for themselves and thus we have all those restrictions to our liberties that we have no, with more of them in the offing.

In Britain self-defense has more or less become a thing of the past and people are told to call the police rather than to take actions themselves. In fact, defending against an attacker or burglar, who then may end up getting injured, could land the victim in jail rather than the perpetrator and this is purely and simply wrong.

While the law states one thing the interpretation of it by the prosecuting authorities and the judges more often than not is a different thing altogether.

Theoretically civilians can defend themselves and even arrest, by use of restraints, such as handcuffs even, a criminal, the practice often is very different indeed with the victim having to defend his or her action rather than the perpetrator being taken in, no questions asked.

Going prepared for defense is seen as carrying offensive weapons, even if this is just a stick or cudgel though there was a time when this was the way everyone went about their business in Britain, including in the cities. The cudgel was a common accoutrement of the gentleman and trader and it was the same in the countryside where every man and boy did carry such as defensive tool and it was accepted that this was the case.

City areas where patrolled, even when the police was already established, by vigilance committees, armed with cudgels, in order to provide security for residents and most able males were enrolled in such committees. What is more, it worked. Then the powers-that-be decided that it was the job of the police, and only of the police, to provide security for people and ever since then we have had problems.

It is up to each and everyone of us to do what is right and to claim back our powers that rightfully belong to us.

© 2013

The right to self-defense

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Under British law it was once totally acceptable to defend oneself and others from attacks and harm but nowadays this has become the sole reserve of the law enfarcement services, basically, especially outside of one's own home.

Everyone in Victorian England and before, especially the men, carried a club, that is to say a cudgel, of some sort or, if he was a person of standing a sword or sword cane and it was accepted by the law that people had the right to defend themselves from attack by whatever means.

Today the criminal has more rights in England than any law-abiding subject of Her Britannic Majesty and the mere thought, almost, of carrying a stick (or something else) for the purpose of self-defense is considered against the law.

Any stick, for instance, especially if perceived as a cudgel, will be immediately considered and offensive weapon in the eyes of the police and the courts of law.

In fact, in Victorian times it was considered a right to be able to defend oneself and even by use of a firearm and many people had and carried such.

Over time, however, the people have permitted the lawmakers to whittle away all those rights by increments and the people also gave those rights away, basically, in return for promised protection by the law and the police.

The response time of the police has never been a great one and the truth is that they really only can come in after the event when a person has been attacked and injured or even killed by an attacker.

Nowadays we have arrived at such a state when the attacker is being treated more favorable than the victim should the latter have had a weapon of any sorts on his or her person with which to defend him- or herself. And even the person who just beats an attacker “to pulp” with his or her hands could find him- or herself charged with a felony.

Has the world gone mad? I would surely say so...

Time the people took back the streets and the right to proper self-defense as it once was the case.

© 2013

The cudgel

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

We live in a dangerous world, just as men have done throughout the ages. In some times and places, the dangers may be obvious and clear, and in others, they may be less obvious, yet they remain.

The saying “walk softly and carry a big stick” is a good adage for it is not always convenient, or legal, to carry a gun, of whatever size or type. In the days of old the weapon of the gentleman, more often that not, was the sword, but that was for gentlemen. The poor could (a) not afford one and (b), theoretically, were also not allowed to carry one.

The answer, however, came in the humble cudgel and our predecessors have provided us with elegant (and effective) solutions for these situations.

One of the oldest, most versatile, and satisfying bits of manly equipage is found in the simple cudgel. At times this may also be referred to as a truncheon, sap, bludgeon, or shillelagh. But in truth a cudgel is a cudgel and a truncheon, for instance, which is known as a Billy Club in the US or a Nightstick, is a policeman's weapon. A sap is not a wooden cudgel or club but something rather different and a shillelagh is a knob-handled walking stick, much like the African knobkerrie.

The wooden thing often referred to as a shillelagh, resembling somewhat of a wooden hammer, is nothing of the kind and just a silly invention of the Irish tourist industry.

The ordinary cudgel is perhaps the simplest of all weapons. It is essentially a short stout stick, usually made of some hardwood, and wielded as a weapon, with one hand.

What could be more convenient? Or natural?

As we all know, the male of our species are, almost mystically, attracted to wood, to sticks. Take your kids for a walk in the woods and the boys, no doubt, and the Dad probably too, will pick up a stick to use either as a walking aid or will sparring with them in stick fighting, even if they have never come across this before. It is just like instinct; like a distant memory.

When during the time of King John I the people of England were no longer allowed to carry “fighting” weapons all that was left to them was the cudgel, the walking stick, and the quarterstaff. The latter two, especially, could be claimed to be used for walking and little could be said or done about it.

Under British law today most that you carry could be misconstrued by a law enfarcement officer as an “offensive weapon” and thus a disguise is needed. No, not you are to wear a disguise; the weapon needs to be disguised, and ideally thus it be a walking stick or knobkerrie rather than the shorter cudgel, unless you can think of a way of discribing it away, so to speak.

Another nice thing about cudgels is that they can be so easily crafted to reflect the nature and personality of their owners. Admittedly, many cudgels, in use, are weapons of opportunity but I believe, though, that most men will want to have their own personal cudgels, and I recommend this as an excellent weekend or evening project to undertake.

The old countrymen of days gone by used to watch their cudgels grow, literally, for they would chose the right branch out there in the copse (coppice) while it was still growing and earmarked it, so to speak, for harvest at the right time.

Some would drill a hole into the working end – the larger part – of the cudgel when they had finished fashioning it and filled it with lead, then plugging the hole with a wooden plug. Personally I do not think that this is, actually, necessary and carrying one filled with lead would definitely land you in hot and deep water with the law in most places in the UK.

Keep it simply wood and then it's good... well, more or less...

© 2013

Supreme Court extends rights of gun ownership

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In a landmark ruling the US Supreme Court on June 28, 2010 has extended the gun rights of the American citizens by limiting the power of states and municipalities to restrict gun ownership.

Some cities like Chicago have strict firearms rules but the ruling of the US Supreme Court now has restricted the rights of state and city governments to enforce controls on gun ownership.

The United State's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional with justices saying that the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the US states. Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years in the US.

The problem though, still is, that even the judges of the Supreme Court do not seem to understand the 2^nd Amendment to the US Constitution properly for the provisions made therein are about military firearms of the day and this would, in the spirit, extend to military hardware of today.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is what the Second Amendment states and when we thus remember that the militia was then the defense force for an area against enemies of all kinds in today's understanding it would mean that the people have the right to own (keep) and bear military firearms.

Two years ago, the same court ruled a ban on handguns in Washington DC to be unconstitutional – declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

But Washington is a federal city, with a unique legal standing. Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago, Illinois, and its suburb of Oak Park, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years.

In June 2010's ruling on that challenge the justices said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states".

Gun control proponents say the ruling will be seen as a blow to efforts to reduce the role of firearms in American life.

The justices seen as the more liberal – Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor – voted against the latest ruling and with Sotamayor's record that was rather obvious.

The case with reference to the gun restrictions in the City of Chicago was brought by four Chicago residents, as well as local firearms rights activists and the National Rifle Association.

The latest Supreme Court decision does not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, but it orders a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling – leaving little doubt that the laws will eventually be overturned.

The NRA has welcomed the "landmark decision" of the court, and it's executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre said, “The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision.”

Too many people are afraid – especially in countries such as Britain – that gun ownership is a bad thing and some seem to see guns as “evil”. A trait they have begun, in the UK, to now attach to knives even.

This is utter stupidity and balderdash as neither a knife nor a gun can be evil; it is the person using it for evil purposes who is and if someone wants to get a gun in order to commit a crime he or she can and will.

On the other hand, legally owned and carried guns can prevent a crime and have done so in many instances, but such instances are never ever reported. Only the the bad sides get into the news and into reports.

Many a problematic situation can be defused with a kind word and many more can be done so with a kind word and the barrel of a gun. The gun reinforcing the word. It works.

In areas where concealed carry is legal in United States towns and cities violent crime like street muggings and such have dropped to near nothing. The reason: criminals are cowards and like their potential victims and bystanders to be defenseless. Armed civilians increase their risks and hence they move their activities elsewhere.

The Supreme Court ruling can be found here. This is a PDF file.

© 2010