The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
In Defense of Self-Defense
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and now Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so. The government cheerfully calls these venues “gun-free zones.” They should be called killing zones.

As unspeakable and horrific as is the recent slaughter in Orlando, it has become just another example of the tragic consequences of government’s interfering with the exercise of fundamental liberties. After a while, these events cease to shock; but they should not cease to cause us to re-examine what the government has done to us.

We know from reason, human nature and history that the right to defend yourself is a natural instinct that is an extension of the right to self-preservation, which is itself derived from the right to live. Life is the great gift from the Creator, and we have a duty to exercise our freedoms to preserve life until its natural expiration. But the lives we strive to preserve should not be those actively engaged in killing innocent life.

The Framers recognized this when they ratified the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court recently held was written to codify — and thus prevent the government from infringing on — the pre-political right to own and use modern-day weapons for self-defense or to repel tyrants.

The term “pre-political” derives from the language of the Second Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The constitutional reference of “the” right to keep and bear arms makes clear that the Framers recognized that the right pre-existed the government because it stems from our humanity. That’s why pre-political rights are known as fundamental or natural rights.

Because the right to use modern weaponry for the defense of life, liberty and property is natural, we should not need a government permission slip before exercising it, any more than we need one to exercise other natural rights, such as speech, press, assembly, travel and privacy.

Yet since the Progressive era 100 years ago — ushered in by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and enabled by nearly every president since — the government has taken the position that it can care for us better than we can care for ourselves. So it has severely curtailed our rights and left us reliant on the government itself for protection.

The modern-day massacres are proof beyond a doubt that the government cannot protect us.

In the Orlando tragedy, the man who killed 49 and wounded 53 used a handgun and a rifle. The handgun accepted magazines containing 17 bullets, and the rifle accepted magazines containing 30 bullets. The killer, using both weapons, fired more than 250 times last Sunday morning. That means he reloaded his weapons about a dozen times. Each time he reloaded, he stopped shooting, as it is impossible for any person to shoot and reload simultaneously.


We know from forensics that the killer was a poor shot. We can deduce from that knowledge that he was a slow reloader. One learns to shoot first and reload later. It is likely that it took between three and seven seconds each time he reloaded the handgun and longer with the rifle. In those time periods, any trained person carrying a handgun in that Orlando nightclub could have wounded or killed him — and stopped the slaughter.

Don’t expect to hear that argument from the gun control crowd in the government. It is the same crowd that has given us the killing zones. It is the same crowd that does not trust you to protect yourself. It is the same crowd that ignores the reality that in the post-World War II era, there is not one recorded example in the U.S. of a person in a restaurant or bar getting drunk and shooting his lawfully carried handgun.

Hillary Clinton called the rifle the Orlando killer carried a “weapon of war.” It is not. It is the same rifle that her Secret Service detail carries. Many of her acolytes have called it an assault rifle. It is not. It fires one round for each trigger pull. True assault rifles — not those that the politicians have renamed assault rifles because they have a collapsible stock and a bayonet holder (I know this sounds ridiculous, but it is true) — fire numerous rounds per trigger pull. They have been outlawed on U.S. soil since 1934.

What do we have here?

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters — as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents — over and over and over again.

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense? There are thousands of crazies in the U.S. who are filled with hate — whether motivated by politics, self-loathing, religion or fear. If they want to kill, they will find a way to do so. The only way to stop them is by superior firepower. Disarming their law-abiding victims not only violates the natural law and the Constitution but also is contrary to all reason.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Gun Control, Orlando Shooting 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It’s perfectly moronic and the height of stupidity and duplicity to have just witnessed the worst mass killing in American history where good men (swat team) with guns engaged a bad man with a gun and decisively ended the killing thereby protecting hundreds of other potential victims…

    …to then condemn and try to disarm other good men with guns.

    My AR-15s serve and protect me, my family and my neighbors just as similar weapons served, and protected my country when I was in the Marines. In the right hands they have no other purpose.


  2. Hbm says:

    Tell us about how great open borders are, Judge.

    Also: Is there a legal term for when an Administration creates terror groups for the benefit of a foreign nation, arms them, imports them, facilitates their murder of Americans, and then uses the murders as a pretext to disarm the citzenry and restrict their ability to dissent, as well as import even more killers?

    • Replies: @Away
  3. Rehmat says:

    The reason US government cannot protect its citizens because all terrorist acts blamed on Muslim pasties were carried out by CIA and other US law enforcement agencies to demonize Muslims and Islam for the interests of the Zionist entity.

    David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps intelligence officer, and the second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence. He is a former CIA clandestine services case officer, and this is what he had to say:

    “Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.”

    But, sometimes these Israeli-butts-lickers forget to cover their faces.

    On December 10, 2015, Lenny and Veronique Pozner in an Op-Ed at Sun Sentinel called professor James Tracy (Florida Atlantic University) a ‘conspiracy theorist’ for questioning the official story of Sandy Hook School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The couple’s 6-year-old son Noah Pozner allegedly died as result of shooting on December 14, 2012. While commemorating third anniversary of their child, the couple demanded that Tracy should be removed from his post at FAU.

    However, it seems, Noah Pozner, was also among the 137 students killed at the hands of foreign terrorists who attacked a military-run school in Peshawar in Pakistan on December 16, 2014….

    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
  4. Away says:

    I thought about reminding everyone that Napolitano is an open boarders fanatic (his “right to travel” mentioned in this piece). His stance is “against peritonitis, for bursted colons.”

  5. @Rehmat

    And there couldn’t have possibly been more than one boy named Noah Posner? I’m a dedicated conspiracy theorist, but these “denialist” threads make me sick. Let’s just call the families of the victims liars and increase their pain. It makes average people think we’re all insensitive dolts. Takes the heat off all the real causes of mass shootings — dangerous psychotropic meds, blowback from US interventions, incompetent or complicit law enforcement, etc.

    • Replies: @AnalogMan
  6. AnalogMan says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    No, you miss the point. The kid “killed” in Pakistan wasn’t named Noah Posner. I don’t think he was named at all in the news reports. But it was the same kid. Not just a similar kid, not just the same kid, but the same photo. That exact same photo you see on Rehmat’s site, same wall, same chair in the background, was published in the news, naming him as Noah Posner. I saw the news reports.

    I’m not saying Sandy Hook was a fake. In fact, my daughter assures me, from independent sources, that children were killed there. Maybe Pakistan was a fake. I have no idea, and won’t speculate. But facts are facts; somebody has been recycling dead kid photos.

    • Replies: @AnalogMan
    , @Rehmat
  7. Napolitano does not perceive the grandeur of the gun-grabbers ultimate goal. It is to turn all of North America (Western Europe is already a done deal, regime and terrorists excepted) into a “gun-free zone” where a violence-monopolizing Judeo-globalist regime can then physically exterminate a soon-to-be White minority population. Only then will the Chosen Ones feel safe

  8. AnalogMan says:

    I looked it up. Snopes says it’s a “mistake”.

  9. mtn cur says:

    I try to avoid places which post a sign prohibiting weapons, most especially those which hysterical folk may consider an attractive nuisance. I wear a ruger or a sig and a Kershaw to church, more to avoid the disgrace of failing to defend my neighbors than from fear for myself.
    Trade in your FMJ 5.56 for premium deer and hog loads boys; it’s inhumane to have to shoot you enemies more than once, no matter what the Geneva Invention may say. Cheers from Dixie.

  10. mtn cur says:

    I note that a reasonably athletic loon with a claw hammer could have killed as many in the given, rather lengthy time frame,. just as in most of these incidents.

  11. Rehmat says:

    No Peshawar terrorism was not fake.

    Pakistani terrorist militant group Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP) took credit for the massacre. The Jewish-controlled western mainstream media always try to associate these butchers with anti-Israel Afghan Taliban. However, both groups have totally different agenda. Afghan Taliban are fighting against the foreign occupation and are friendly toward Pakistan. Their leaders have condemned the terrorist attack. On the other hand, TTP wants to destroy Pakistan as a single nation. They are fighting Pakistan military to weaken it in line with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (US National War Academy), a military analyst at the Pentagon, who proposed the Balkanization of the Middle East in his article titled Blood Borders – advocated the incorporation of the NWFP into Afghanistan and the creation of an independent Baluchistan, carved out of Baluch areas of Pakistan and Islamic Iran and protected by US-Israel. Pakistani Baluchistan is estimated to hold 25.1 trillion cubic feet of gas and 6 trillion barrels of oil….

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?