A failure to defend innocent life, including your own, is a sin.

Expand full comment

Second Amendment Thoughts from my substack https://drp314.substack.com/

The culture war brims over with skirmishes over the Second Amendment. The modern Left maintains that it is dangerous and leads to higher crime rates, and that it was only important in our pioneer past. Some members of the Left may believe this, while others just don't like that it is a check on arbitrary power. The Right, whatever that means, sees it as a protector of individual rights. (What is the Right, anyway? The Left claims that the German Socialist Workers Party were on the Right, as though Hitler was passing out handguns to Jews to keep them out of the camps.)

It was not always the case that Democrats were so against the Second Amendment. Consider:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” Hubert Humphrey – Democrat, U. S. Senator, Presidential Candidate and Vice President

Notice that Humphrey said nothing about hunting or protection from crime, but that it is a safeguard against tyranny, a view now considered to be extreme right wing, but just a typical American attitude at that time. Also, the word is arms, not guns in particular.

Going with that same point of view, here is Mr. 1984 himself:

"The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." George Orwell

Orwell's “rifle” would have been the “assault rifle” of his day.

What about all of those school shootings, one may ask. One may note that school shootings did not begin until after the passage of the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1990. A cynical view would be this:

School shootings. Pass a law legally prohibiting the adults in a school from protecting the children, wait for the occasional nut case, blame Republicans and guns, never mention said law, rinse and repeat. Frequently talk about school shootings on the news so the nut cases never forget. (So people will give up their guns. After all, people will not willingly get in the boxcars.)

This might be a little strong, but the coastal elites should be aware that many people see things in something of this light.

But clearly, one may opine, any truly decent, well meaning and spiritual person would never condone an armed populous since that would just not be right.

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Mahatma Gandhi

So, is it just a matter of if you are for the powerful or for the people?

We always hear, considering the latest proposed restriction, that if it saves just one life it's worth it. They neglect to say that if it costs just one life it's not worth it. How about, if removing a given firearms restriction saves just one life, it's worth it? The fact that such thoughts are anathema to the left makes one suspect that saving lives is not the issue.

Are there any cases of gun control costing lives? A couple come to mind. At one time airline pilots were required to carry handguns if there was U.S. mail on board, so in effect they always did. (Most pilots were ex military anyway, and they simply had them in their carry on bags, not on their hips.) Rules slowly changed, going to optional until, not too long before 9/11 they were completely banned. After 9/11 there was great resistance to allowing pilots to be armed, and was done only with great regulation.

To reiterate, the other obvious case is school shootings. School shootings were unheard of before the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. Why is it that the act was not rescinded after the school shootings started? Similarly, before 1968 one could simply buy a gun with cash and walk out of the store with it, yet we did not have mass shootings.

Clearly, at least for the leaders, the issue is not public safety.

Popular among 2A supporters is the idea of the four boxes. The idea is that the protections to liberty contained in the Bill of Rights consist of the ballot box, the jury box, the soap box and the cartridge box. Upon inspection one notices that only the last consists of real, physical objects. A tyrannical government may simply do away with voting, corrupt the court system and eliminate freedom of speech. They would no doubt declare the private possession of arms to be illegal, but collecting them would be a monumental task.

Before all else, be armed. - Niccolo Machiavelli

A disturbing aspect of the 20th century is the large number of people killed by their own governments. Total numbers vary depending on the source, but it's fair to say that at least 100 million people died in this way. (It's hard to pin down; if you died while serving a hard labor sentence in the Soviet Union, does that count?) One may turn around the saving one life argument and say, “If it prevents just one genocide, it's worth it.”

There is the entire issue of the effect of gun control on crime. The tone from the media is always to the effect that, of course, gun control reduces crime, but they do not provide evidence. A big issue is just the fact that there is much that does not come through in official statistics. A person who fends off a burglar in New York City with an illegal gun cannot report it to the police. (He may realize that the criminal will then go on to victimize an unarmed New Yorker, but he can't do anything about it.)

Then there are the crimes that simply don't occur do to the presence of arms. Businesses that do not suffer the from organized crime perpetrating protection rackets, for instance, as they often do in the more heavily restricted areas. Indeed, it seems probable that organized crime is drawn to such areas,and avoids the others.

Well, that's a few thoughts on this inflammatory subject.

Expand full comment
Jun 26·edited Jun 26

As a retired public health nurse here in California I cannot support irresponsible folks being able to have a gun. AND, if the government wants to take away all our guns, they must go after all the criminals first. Guns are too easily available for purchase. As to a well-regulated militia...yes, the meaning in the Constitution is clear as you so deftly explain. I do support those folks who are well-trained who can defend themselves and others responsibly.

Expand full comment

Naomi, you can have peace without guns. Because the only ones left will be able practice there religion of debauchery. Wokeness is code for: We've awoke from the pit of hell. Lol

Expand full comment

It appears to me that you went through a Charade to promote something you would never use

and call that "advice to women. Ver, very foolish. Lots of words, no substance.

Expand full comment

The Second Amendment is not theoretical. It must be lived. It must be acted upon. It must be exercised.

Expand full comment

2 disturbing issues you mention Naomi have resonated some further thought 🤔.

The first...they are planning something. Biden’s continued extension of the emergency powers for no legitimate health crisis reason means they are planning something. DEMS are not going to relinquish power easily. So why the unnecessary extension?

The second, you said, “unidentifiable police or mercenary forces, as in Canada, are violent, and the protesters have nothing but the moral high ground with which to deter their violence.”

Is it any wonder that the violence in blue states continues and these officials are doing nothing to combat it? Adams and Hochul in NY, New-scum in CA, Wheeler and Brown in Oregon, Wolf in PA, Michigan’s Gov Whitmer, Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago...are doing absolutely nothing for a reason. They never seem to catch or prosecute these “unidentifiable violent perpetrators” of mass drive-by shootings. Could these be orchestrated as well? Look at the NON-Prosecutors Bragg and Gascon!

The FBI has certainly shown it’s true colors of late with the fake Whitmer kidnapping, Jan 6th setups and unnecessary, illegal raids against peaceful, law-abiding American citizens and a sitting President 😳. Would anyone now not put it past any of them to create some domestic terrorism incident they so willfully claim to deter? Just the obfuscation of law itself by these rogue politicians and agencies should be grounds for dismissal BY THE REPUBLIC!!

The tides are definitely turning because of all the exposed lies and corruption of the Biden family and alphabet agencies. So yes, in all agreement, a moral high ground backed by an uninfringed, Constitutional 2nd Amendment right, is certainly being put to a test!! But WHY? Maybe you or some other trusted, real investigative journalists can find out the “real hidden” reasons behind it all.

Expand full comment

Mostly good thoughts with two glaring exceptions:

1. Merely being armed does not prevent one from becoming a victim of violence.

2. No, a class, a permit, and four references are NOT " ... as it should be ...."

Dr. Wolf is otherwise on-point, and I respect her ability and willingness to re-evaluate her positions.

Expand full comment

"Can We Indeed Have Peace and Freedom Without Guns?" No, because if someone my size decides to be a predator, most people would stand no chance what-so-ever against that person. 6'4" 250 solid weight lifter, 2nd degree black belt in two styles of martial arts. What could you do against someone like that if you were the average woman or the average man? "God made man, Colonel Colt made him equal". "I came here with two of my friends...Smith & Wesson and me" Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry. And if we REALLY wanted to stop the problem we would make those in "power", we need to make them give us those first 13 words back into force and effect.... https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/those-forgotten-and-ignored-13-words-957

Expand full comment

Very well thought out and bravo! Yes, yes and yes. To ANYONE male or female who has an inkling about firearm ownership & safety I say find an officially NRA trained professional and take as many classes and as long as you need to overcome your fears starting in the classroom and then onto the range if you desire. These professionals have the highest of standards regarding safety and training, along with a desire to help you. In fact, safety is so paramount on a range, that you may even see other shooters there warn, guide, instruct, report if necessary anyone acting in an unsafe manner with a firearm. We all take it very seriously. If you still don't want a firearm for yourself, that is ok but read Naomi's writings and let us do the heavy lifting of protection for you and do not limit our rights by buying into the propaganda levied on us for so many years. Remember, there is a reason your Govt would like to disarm you and you saw it exercised during Covid mania. 2A, is the only force multiplier designed to protect the weak from the strong. And yes a semi auto AR15 is justified (family or business protection against multiple intruders aka mob for 1)

Expand full comment

As a life long resident of upstate NY I have had a permit since 1976. I am not part of the gun problem and I take it personally Kathy Hochul's hate for law abiding citizens like myself. I believe her hatred of 2A is the fear of someone taking her power away. Just like Biden, on down. If it was truly about school shootings the politicians would give up their police forces and the same resources would be re-assigned to the schools. I read that the mayor of Chicago's personal detail takes some 120 police. I imagine Hochul's does too. How many just so Joe can go for ice cream, all armed to the teeth with their words "weapons of war" to protect them from the their constituents.

Expand full comment

I agree with every word. I also used to think no one should have guns. But not any more

Expand full comment

Glad you arrived. Maybe you spent too much time on college campus. Which is the safest place ever. Within something like five concentric protective barriers. Many thanks for writing this. Sorely wish you had understood this sooner. Hope that this opens some minds.

Expand full comment

Very well written and true. As a Canadian Gun owner I can attest to the safe ownership of a weapon. In Canada I had to pass a safety course over two weekends, one for rifles and shotguns and another for hand guns. I had to apply for a license including a background check. I must store them locked, ammunition separate. We can’t conceal carry here and must get police approval to move a handgun except to go to a range. In Canada now, though, we cannot buy handguns any longer. Although Criminals just buy black market smuggled ones. I’ve often said the reason the US has not had as harsh treatment for Covid by the government is because of your second amendment. Keep it up Naomi you’re doing a great job Thank you.

Expand full comment

So you are going to stop the Feds and Bill Gates' mercenaries with your puny gun? They tried that in Waco and Ruby ridge. We know how that went.

Expand full comment

Well said. Very informative....as the daughter of a family of old world immigrants, hunters who hunted to survive the depression, I'd grown up around guns as, basically a tool. I was taught to use a gun and to hunt as a life skill. I was also instructed in the use of guns for self defense, should an intruder ever make it through the hunting dogs to us.

It is amazing and instructive to hear such a drastically different perspective, especially being a child of the 70s myself.

Guns are an equalizer. They level the playing field and thereby diffuse threats that might be acted on in situations of corruption and abuses of power, which, let's face it, all entities of power eventually succumb to.

Expand full comment