Respect for Life



Print Friendly and PDF

By Nicki Kenyon, May 5th 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.

We often are told that gun banners' ultimate goal is to save lives. "If it saves the life of one child," they claim, it is worth violating the rights of millions. They claim to want safety and security. They claim to respect human life.

These efforts are transparently contradictory. They want to render you vulnerable to armed predators in order to make you safer. They want to disarm you to protect you. They want to leave you defenseless to save your life. They want to make it more difficult for you to own the most effective tool on the market today under the guise of "public safety." And they want to force you to rely on the government to protect you rather than ensure you have the tools to take responsibility for your own life and the lives of your loved ones.

An even closer glimpse into these claims this week provides a horrifying look into the twisted mentality of these hoplophobes, who try to disarm you under the pretext of saving your life. If you scratch the surface, you will reveal that these people couldn't possibly care less about saving lives. As a matter of fact, they have no respect for life at all.

For instance, did you know that the state of New Jersey denied an ATM owner a carry permit, because the state does not consider self-defense a "justifiable need." Think for a minute about the sickening meaning of this statement. The politicians in New Jersey do not consider the ability to protect your life and your property a "justifiable need" to allow you to carry a tool of personal protection. They apparently do not consider your right to life a good enough reason to allow you to defend it. They apparently don't consider the right to life a "right" at all!

Because the right to life necessarily carries with it the right to protect that life, and the right to protect your life necessitates the use of the most effective tool you can find today. That tool is a firearm.

If you have to beg permission from bureaucrats and politicians, who more often than not hire armed security, or have connections that make it easy to secure authorization to exercise their rights, even as they work to relieve you of yours, to protect your life with the most effective tool available, you can consider that right effectively destroyed.

The fact that you have to justify defending your life at all, reveals volumes about their lack of respect for your life and exposes their twisted endgame – not to protect life, but to rule over a powerless populace, dependent on them for their very existence.

In another recent example, Detroit's Police Chief James Craig was castigated... rebuked... for advocating armed self-defense in that pit of violent crime. While Detroit's violent crime statistics show a reduction in 2013, it is still one of the most violent cities in the United States ( Chief Craig appears to understand that police cannot be everywhere to protect every citizen, and he has recently vocally supported the right to self-defense in Detroit . "Criminals in Detroit should know they shouldn't just be afraid of the police," he said, "...they should also be afraid of responsible gun owners who are prepared to protect themselves and their homes."

And for this oh-so-egregious statement, hoplophobes all over the country, as well as in the city of Detroit, have soiled their collective panties and accused Chief Craig of advocating vigilantism. defines a "vigilante" as someone who takes the law into his or her hands without recourse to lawful procedures (

Chief Craig further expounded on the distinction between lawful self-defense and the concept of vigilantism when he was forced to defend himself against gun grabbers hurling abuse in his direction like so many monkeys flinging excrement in anger and frustration at their inability to drag the Chief into their promotion of defenselessness.

I do not promote vigilantism. In fact, I vehemently object. It's cowardly. Vigilantism is self-appointed law enforcement. They're not authorized to engage in law enforcement activities and when they do engage in that, they should be punished.

However, I do support the Constitution of this United States. I didn't write the laws or write the Second Amendment, but I happen to be an advocate of self-defense – self-defense when someone's faced with imminent - the emphasis on imminent - threat to their life or someone else, they have the right to protect themselves.

And for this, Sandra Hines of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality called the chief "irresponsible," and said he is encouraging vigilantism.

Her compatriot Ron Scott wholeheartedly agreed, and dredged up the specter of the "Wild West," which was positively idyllic compared to modern day Detroit!

Taking a closer look at what Scott and Hines are saying, we once again see a gruesome lack of regard for human life. Shooting an intruder, in their eyes, is "taking the Wild West approach," even if you're a 50 year-old woman alone in your home, and he is a 24 year-old thug climbing through your window. In their view, a homeowner who shoots two intruders who are breaking into his house is "irresponsible."

Perhaps they would rather see the potential victim forced to wait until they can discern the intruder's intent.

At what point, we wonder, is ventilating a threat acceptable in their eyes? When your daughter is tied up ready to be raped, or when information about the location of your money and jewelry is being beaten out of you by armed thugs?

This is the noxious, gruesome mentality of gun grabbers. They do not believe there are good guys and bad guys in our society. As a matter of fact, to them, this concept is "divisive." They would rather promote the concept of peace and harmony than actual peace and harmony, because real peace sometimes requires the physical eradication of a threat. They have no respect for life, but merely the concept of life – a concept they don't care to understand and don't want to acknowledge as a real, precious, important gift that is easily taken away.

They do not care if you lose your life, because the very real possibility that you may have to eradicate an evil creature from this world, gives them spasms, as they don't see the difference between you and your assailant.

They do not differentiate between the life of an elderly lady under attack by violent thugs, and the lives of the thugs themselves. They see no more meaning in her life, or in the life of any innocent victim fighting for their existence, than the predators that attack them. And they will assail anyone who challenges this worldview.

Does forcing the innocent to beg for authorization to protect themselves and their loved ones show a respect for life?

Does perpetuating the view that there is no distinction between the life of innocent victims and the lives of those who would abuse them show a respect for life?

What it shows is a warped worldview where the distinction between good and evil does not exist.

What it shows is a healthy disdain for existence and a desire for power so profound, that it would destroy life.

So think about that the next time a gun grabber claims to just want to protect life.

They do not.

Was this information valuable to you? If so, please consider donating, becoming a member or renewing your membership, or buying a DVD, book, tee-shirt, or other gear at our JPFO store.

Nicki Kenyon has been an avid gun rights advocate since she returned to the United States from an overseas Army tour in Germany. She began writing about Second Amendment issues in 2001 when published her first essay, "The Moment.". She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in International Relations from the Johns Hopkins University and a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies from American Military University. Her area of expertise in those fields is European and Eurasian affairs. When not writing about gun rights or hanging out with her husband and son, she practices dry-firing her M1911 at the zombies of "The Walking Dead."

Back to Top




The JPFO Store

Films and CDs