1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Philippines: "Permit to carry, first defense"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Yoda, May 27, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yoda

    Yoda Member

    Jul 17, 2008
    Florida, bouncing between Hurlburt Fld and MacDill
    This is great. The right of self defense is apparently recognized by at least one writer in the Philippines. He gets it. He really gets it! His English is occasionally a bit hard to follow, but I'm sure that almost all of us would agree with every word:

    "Manila Bulletin: Permit to carry, first defense"

    "Permit to carry firearms outside of residence does not merely recognize your legal right to defend yourself from being a victim, but upholds a higher human norm -- the inviolable natural right: 1) to life, for peace loving & responsible citizens 2) to struggle in the armed restoration of a sovereign, democratic and libertarian State, versus, a domestic would-be tyrant, or a foreign ruler...

    "The above, requires substantive reiteration in the upcoming Philippine National Police (PNP) “summit on extended gun ban” given the ... tempestuous evolution of our democracy, made possible by many a patriotic resistance unconfined to the might of the pen, of speech, but also the “sword.”

    "...Put differently, government, law, the basic charter must reflect and conform to our unique history, and not vice versa. A reversed rendering, is not only irreverent to our past, but is the best formula to losing our compass as a free people.

    "Recall the early 70s, a dictator ... under the mantle of unrestricted “martial law,” perceiving a threat in an armed citizenry, hence the immediacy totally disarming them. When presidents begin to disallow ownership or the carrying of its own citizens of the means to protect themselves; when governments begin suspecting its own citizens as part of the peril to law & order, because they are registered/legal holders or carriers of guns, then it is time for the sovereign people to be suspicious of the motives of such prohibition. ...

    "Because when accountable and patriotic citizens are restricted to exercise the first option of armed self-defense...while waiting for either dependable, tardy, partial, or indisposed police/military response, then only kidnappers, carjackers, bank robbers, drug syndicates, warlords, terrorists, abusive politicians or uniformed personnel...will have the comfort/privilege of choosing any victim or target anywhere, everywhere, and with the impunity for optimum first violence.

    "Considering ... the lack of (police) personnel, equipments, ability for quicker response time (and) proliferation of guns in warlord, rebel & terrorist areas, it would be “criminal” to restrict law abiding tax payers the weapon for first defense...

    "...Besides, it was admitted by the (police) that 97% of loose firearms are used in committing crime. The disconnect with advocated gun control for licensed firearms holders, & extending the gun ban for permits, is glaring, and suspicious."

    Here's the link:

    - - - Yoda
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page