Retten til selvforsvar

For retten til at forsvare sig selv og sine kære

Om våbenlov i et af verdens mest farlige samfund

Navnet Jamaica bringer billeder af blå badestrande og afslappede ganjarygende rastafarier, men ifølge FNs “Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems” er Jamaica et af de absolut mest mordplagede samfund i verden. Her er historien om en kvinde der voksede op under afvæbningen af den jamaicanske befolkning.


by Tina Terry (c) 1998

(Published in THE FIREARMS SENTINEL, the quarterly publication of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) – P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, Wisconsin, 53027 – phone: 414-673-9746; web site:

Those who stridently and self-righteously lobby for the seizure of all guns by the government in America, particularly women like Sarah Brady, Barbra Streisand, Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, would do well to study the results of forced disarmament in other countries.

I have personally lived through a government-instigated disarmament of the general public, and its subsequent, disastrous consequences: From 1961 to 1977 my father (who is a white American, as are my mother, sister and I) was stationed with his family and business in Kingston, Jamaica.

Around 1972, the political situation in Jamaica had so seriously deteriorated that there were constant shootings and gun battles throughout the city of Kingston and in many of the outlying parishes (counties). In years past no one had even had to lock their doors, but now many people hardly dared venture out of their homes. This was especially true for white people, and even more especially for Americans, because of the real risk of being gunned down or kidnapped and held hostage by Jamaicans, who had become increasingly hostile towards whites and foreigners. My father took his life into his hands every morning simply driving to work. Going to the market or to do a simple errand was often a terrifying prospect. The open hatred and hostility which was directed at us seemed ready at any time to explode into violence, and indeed did so towards many people on many occasions, often with tragic or fatal results.

The Jamaican government decided that the only solution to this Volatile situation was to declare martial law overnight, and to demand that all guns and bullets owned by anyone but the police and the military be turned into the police within 24 hours. The government decreed that anyone caught with even one bullet would be immediately, and without trial, incarcerated in what was essentially a barbed-wire enclosed concentration camp which had been speedily erected in the middle of Kingston. In true Orwellian fashion, the government referred to this camp as “the gun court.”

My father and all of our American, Canadian, British and European friends, as well as middle class Jamaicans of all colors (locally referred to as “black,” ‘white,” or “beige”) knew that we were all natural targets of this kind of draconian government punishment. The relentless anti-American propaganda spewed forth by Michael Manley, Jamaica’s admittedly pro-Castro Prime Minister, had resulted in the widespread hatred of Americans, British and Europeans by many Jamaicans. Racial hatred of whites and “beiges,” as well as class hatred of anyone who appeared to have money or property, were rampant.

Consequently, we all dutifully and immediately disarmed ourselves, and handed our weapons in at the nearest police station. It was either that or be sent straight to the gun court. Even after we had disarmed ourselves, we lived in deathly fear that the cops, not known for their integrity, and well-known for their hatred of whites and Americans, would plant a gun or bullet on our property or persons.

So there we all were – government-disarmed, sitting-duck, law-abiding citizens and expatriates. Anyone can guess what happened next: the rampant and unfettered carnage began in earnest. Robberies, kidnappings, murders, burglaries, rapes – all committed by the vast populace of still-armed criminals. Doubtless the criminals were positively ecstatic that the government had been so helpful in creating all these juicy and utterly defenseless victims for their easy prey.

We’ve all heard the phrase, “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” I can personally confirm that this statement is absolutely and painfully true, because that is exactly how the Jamaican disarmament worked. At the time of the disarmament order, I was away at boarding school in the United States. However, I remember vividly coming home for the summer. I remember the muted but pervasive atmosphere of tension and terror which constantly permeated our household, affecting even our loyal black servants, who worked for and lived with us, and whom we took care of. (Practically every household in Jamaica, except the very poorest, had live-in servants. There was no welfare or public school in Jamaica, so middle-class families became completely responsible for the well-being of their servants, who were considered to be part of the family, including taking them to the doctor, and helping to educate their children.)

I remember lying awake in bed at night, clutching the handle of an ice-pick I had put under my pillow, and listening to the screaming of car-loads of Jamaican gangs going by our house, praying that they wouldn’t pick our home to plunder. The favorite tactic was for a group of thugs to roar up to a house, pile out, batter down the door and rape, steal, kill, kidnap… whatever they felt like. They knew the inhabitants had been disarmed, and that they would be met with only fear and defenselessness. My pathetic ice-pick seemed incredibly puny, but it was all I could think of. Our family didn’t even own a baseball bat.

I remember lying awake thinking about how our beloved dogs were old and feeble, and that they could not protect us. And that I could not protect them either.

I can barely describe the abject terror and helplessness I felt as both a white American and as a young woman during that time. Jamaica was then about 90% black. Although I was (and still am) an American citizen, my family had lived in Kingston for almost 12 years when this situation occurred, and I considered Jamaica to be my real home. Many of my friends were Jamaican. My first serious boy-friend was Jamaican. For all its faults, I loved this beautiful, suffering island dearly, and I felt like a stranger when I was away at school in America, where I was always homesick for Jamaica.

When we had first moved to Jamaica in 1960, my sister and I (both Blonde and obviously white) had been able to ride our horses up into the hills, and, whenever we encountered local Jamaicans, their salutation to us was open and friendly, as was ours to them. As things deteriorated into the reign of terror, and then the government instituted overnight citizen disarmament, when we ventured outside our home, we almost always encountered hate-filled stares and hostile hisses of, “Eh, white bitch! Eh, look ‘ere, white bitch!” and other unprintable epithets.

Jamaica was, in the 1970’s, a country with at least 50% illiteracy and an illegitimacy rate of over 50%. If a Jamaican girl wasn’t pregnant by the age of 15 or 16, she was often derisively branded “a mule,” since mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, are almost always sterile. Being a woman, let alone a white woman, in such a climate, especially after the disarmament of the citizenry by the government, was one of the most terrifying experiences one can imagine.

At that time, I had never held or fired a gun. I had rarely ever even seen a gun. No one in my family had ever learned about, used or even talked about firearms, except my father, who had been in the U.S. Army. In our social circle, guns were deemed “unseemly” and “inappropriate” for polite society, and especially for young ladies. I had never given much thought to any of the Bill of Rights, let alone the Second Amendment. Yet we Americans all knew the Bill of Rights did not protect us in Jamaica, just as it hadn’t applied to us at our previous station in Singapore.

My dad had fought in World War II, however, and had brought back a Luger pistol, which he had taken with him to Jamaica when we moved there after having spent 6 years in Singapore. No law had prevented his bringing a gun to Jamaica in 1960. When my dad handed that pistol and all his bullets in to the police, I vaguely realized that he was no longer allowed by the government to protect my mom, my sister or me, or our household.

I was pretty confused at the time. Terrified of being kidnapped, raped, murdered, robbed, at the same time I was still mindlessly anti-gun, because the criminals all had guns, and the government had declared guns to be contraband, and we were all terrified of being hurt by bad guys with guns, all of which somehow meant that guns must be “dangerous” and “bad” and therefore should be banned, just as the Jamaican government had decreed. As white Americans, our status was that of Permanent guests in a foreign and increasingly hostile country. In fact, after 6 years in Singapore, and 12 in Jamaica, we well knew how to strive to be “model guests,” which meant that questioning or challenging the Jamaican government’s authority was unthinkable — even when such government authority decreed that we be made helpless. None of us had any illusions about any “rights” to defend ourselves. We might have been able to do so with the government’s blessing in the good old days, before chaos and violence and racial hatred had taken over. But now it was different. Now we were white, visible, foreign, sitting ducks in a hostile black sea. And I was a white, visible, foreign, female sitting duck.

As obedient as I was to authority, I grasped that our household was defenseless, and that I as a woman was particularly defenseless. And I realized that, had my dad still had his pistol, I would have felt much safer. I even realized that I would be willing to pick up a gun if my life were threatened. For a person who claimed to be anti-gun, these feelings really confused me. At least eleven friends and acquaintances of my family were raped, kidnapped, murdered or robbed within about a year after the disarmament, and I believe it is a miracle that we are all still alive. I am convinced that many of these people would not have been victims had they not been disarmed by the Jamaican government. It was tragically ironic that the government had sold this whole disarmament program to us with the promise that: “We’re here to help you, and this is for your own good and safety.” Because of this horrid and indelible experience, and of my interest in and undying loyalty to the American Bill of Rights, I have made it my personal business to study the history of the Second Amendment. I have studied related topics, too, such as police responsibility to citizens. It is my belief that many people believe that disarmament is no big deal, because it is the job of the police to protect us. Particularly many women seem to believe this. The media and of Government authorities continue to generate pervasive and corrosive propaganda aimed at creating a helpless and disarmed populace. I used to completely believe this propaganda, but I have learned the following realities:

1. The police have no legal duty to protect individual citizens, and cannot be held responsible if they fail to do so. Even if a citizen’s 911 call gets through to the emergency center, the police can simply choose not to show up, and the citizen has no legal recourse against the police. The courts have repeatedly ruled on this. As the court wrote in Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982): “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in South v. Maryland, __ U.S. ___, ruled in a similar vein as far back as 1856.

2. The police carry guns primarily to defend THEMSELVES, not to protect us.

3. Because of items 1 and 2 above, we should all consider the police to be, essentially, HISTORIANS. They show up AFTER the crime has been committed and attempt to reconstruct and document the history of the crime. If the history is satisfactorily re-constructed, then the perpetrator is apprehended (if he can be found) and then (perhaps) prosecuted. This after-the-fact law enforcement does little good for the dead or wounded crime victims.

4. Women have a particular stake in preserving the right to bear arms. There is no way to describe the helplessness a woman feels when she is disarmed and made helpless by anyone. Add to that the rage she feels when the agency who is disarming her and leaving her at the mercy of rapists, murderers, goons and thugs, is a sanctimonious government telling her that it’s “for her own good.”

Although there are many serious issues in today’s roiling political And social stew, I believe that preserving and restoring the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular, is the most pivotal and basic issue to all Americans, and particularly female Americans, even if they don’t yet know it. The consummate idiocy propounded by some folks (including some women) that the Second Amendment exists only to protect sportsmen’s rights is particularly ridiculous and relevant to women, most of whom don’t hunt, and who care more about being able to get a decent hand-gun for self-protection than a hunting rifle to pursue deer or elk.

Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights is either “out of date,” “hokey” or “needs revising” – all of which I’ve heard from well-meaning but tragically ignorant and complacent Americans – should try living in a country which doesn’t have one. I have been there and done that, and I don’t want to go through it ever again -especially not in my own native nation. So I am dedicated to preventing today’s government nanny from turning, as so often has occurred in history, into tomorrow’s government despot.

Finally, I implore anyone reading this, particularly women, to likewise dedicate themselves to studying this issue carefully, and to likewise taking an active stance to preserve the Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

Postscript: As of the latter part of August of this year (1998), it doesn’t appear that the situation in Jamaica has changed much for the better. Many Jamaicans of all colors have immigrated to America to start businesses and to escape the hopelessness of the situation in their homeland. I recently spoke with a black Jamaican named Marcus, who has opened a wonderful Jamaican restaurant in Phoenix named “Likkle Montego,” where I can go and eat Jamaican food, and catch the latest news from my long-lost home. When asked how things are today in Kingston, Marcus simply shook his head: “Nottin’ change attahly know. Everyt’ing still de same. Crime is still bad, mon. Gov’ment still de same. T”ings dere is bad and terrible, mon. Bad and terrible.”

And guns are still outlawed in Jamaica. Armed criminals still Terrorize disarmed citizens, since still in Jamaica only outlaws (and the government) have guns. Like the man said: Bad and terrible, mon. Bad and terrible.

Please include the following re-publication information with any republishing:

Permission is given to republish this article, as long as none of it is changed, shortened or altered, the author and JPFO are given full credit in any such republishing, and this entire republishing message is included. Author may be reached by writing to:
Tina Terry
c/o JPFO

Ligner det noget vi begynder at genkende i vores del af verden?


maj 16, 2009 - Posted by | Mord, vold | , ,

5 kommentarer »

  1. Hej RTSF
    Artiklen fik mig til at tænke på en anden vinkel, nemlig at kvinder ofte er dem, som lider mest under lovløsheden, men som samtidig ofte støtter politikker, som direkte svækker deres egen sikkerhed. Kvinder er ofte de mest naive, mest villige til at lade selv kriminelle og voldelige mandetyper tvivlen komme til gode, og er lige så ofte fortallerne for en blødsøden retspolitik over for selv klart skyldige kriminelle.
    Eftersom denne tingenes tilstand kun kan fortsætte, sålænge mange mennesker ikke føler den rå vold på egen krop, burde vi måske på lang sigt håbe på, at tilstrækkeligt mange af de såkaldte pladderhumanister bliver konsumeret af den velfortjente ild, de selv har startet med deres blødsødenhed. Intet varer evigt, og selv et sygt system vil være nødt til at korrigere sig selv eller bryde sammen, når det ikke leverer den fysiske sikkerhed, som borgerne som en følge af våbenforbuddet er afskåret fra at sørge for.
    Det er ikke mindre interessant, at våbenforbud ofte bliver gennemført mest ivrigt i samfund, som er soft on crime. Jo dårligere samfundet er ttil at overholde den sociale kontrakt, desto mere vil det forstærke den generelle og umålrettede konfiskation af alle våben.
    Med dit tidligere indlæg i mente, kunne man derfor overveje, om danskerne ikke fortjener deres egen skæbne, fordi de de ved flere folketingsvalg har stemt på humanistiske partier. Der er ikke bare tale om, at danskerne vælger forkert en gang, men om at de næsten vælger forkert hver gang.
    Hver gang valget står mellem selvmorderiskk humanisme og rationalitet, vælger de selvmordskursen.

    Kommentar af PerH | maj 17, 2009 | Svar

  2. Danmarks langsomme forvandling er vel en god illustration af aksiomet om, at et folk har de politikere det fortjener.
    Danskerne har ønsket et humanistisk samfund, og har sandt for dyden fået alt det kunne ønske sig af humanisme og en god portion dekadence.

    Kommentar af PerH | maj 17, 2009 | Svar

  3. Skal vi gøre op, og det kommer vi til, så må rækkefølen være først vore undertrykkende egne politikere, dernæst de indtrængende fremmede.


    Kommentar af falkeøje | maj 17, 2009 | Svar

  4. Hej PerH
    Du har fat i en interessant diskussion angående mange kvinders tensender til at overse fare. Jeg har ofte funderet over denne feminine tendens til at være modstander af al vold og alt som kan bruges voldeligt, selv når denne modstand mere eller mindre indirekte medfører mere vold. Jeg er da heller ikke i tvivl om, at den Vestlige verdens, på alle måder, kvælende omsorgssystemer og absurde strafferet, i høj grad skyldes kvindens involvering i den politiske sfære.
    Jeg tror det har noget at gøre med kønnenes forskellige opgaver i fortiden (og til dels også i vore dage), hvor mændene skulle passe stammen og holde udkig efter fjender, mens kvinderne passede børnene og sjældent omgik andre end familie og venner, som man jo kunne stole på.

    Der var på et tidspunkt en meget virkelig blog, hvor netop dette emne ofte var omdrejningspunktet. Desværre blev den lukket da det ikke længere var muligt for ophavsmændene at have navnebeskyttelse på domænenavnet. Jeg mener den hed (EDIT: Nu hedder den, nu er den ejet af en Hansen, som vist ikke har noget at gøre med den tidligere blog.

    Hvad angår vores eget ansvar, så vil jeg kun delvist give dig ret. Folk stemmer jo kun 1 gang hver 3-4. år på nogle politikere som har en bredt spektrum af observerbare og uobserverbare holdninger, hvilket gør det næsten umuligt for borgerne at have en reel indflydelse på politikken.
    Måske finder man det vigtigt at have en socialdemokratisk omfordelingspolitik men går ind for en hård strafferet. Hvem stemmer man så på? DF, måske. Men hvad hvis man godt kan lide muslimer eller måske er tilhænger af høje miljøafgifter? Så stemmer man på Socialdemokraterne eller SF, selvom om man er rygende uenig på eks. det strafferetslige område. Eller også stemmer man på DF med de uenigheder som det indebærer.
    Eller i mit eksempel stemmer jeg på DF, selvom deres våbenpolitik er helt hen i vejret og deres politik på statens størrelse kunne forbedres betydeligt. Det gør jeg fordi jeg vægter deres indvandrerpolitik højere end den som kan tilbydes af partier med mere liberal våben- og skattepolitik (Liberal Alliance måske?).
    Jeg tror derfor ikke danskerne fortjener det system vi har, men at vi har det nuværende system på grund af det danske demokratis (ironisk nok) antidemokratiske struktur, som ikke tager rimeligt hensyn til variationen hos hver vælger. Det danske valgsystem er bedre end det amerikanske eller britiske, men det er ikke godt nok. Hvis det var praktisk muligt at lave folkeafstemninger om alle lovforslag, tror jeg dansk politik ville se betydeligt anderledes ud.

    @ Falkeøje
    Dine kommentarer vækker den indre rebel hos de fleste 🙂

    Kommentar af rettentilselvforsvar | maj 17, 2009 | Svar

  5. Til 4 (rettentilselvforsvar

    Jeg ved ikke, om du kender Kimpo. Jo det gør du selvfølgelig, men han har faktisk fat i mange af de samme pointer om feminiseringen af den førte politik. Når jeg læser, at endnu en kvinde er blevet voldtaget eller dræbt af en prædatorisk mand med en tidligere dokumenteret straffehistorie, tænker jeg på, omm hun har stemt borgerligt, kulturradikalt eller til venstre for midten.

    Mange af disse kvinder er selv meddelagtige i at understøtte et usundt system, der gør samfundet til en jagtmark for disse farlige mandetyper. De kvinder ligger derfor som de har redt, for modsat andre der kun stemmer på humanistiske partier, fordi de ønsker en progressiv omfordelingspolitik, deler mange kvinder faktisk alle humanismens dogmer fra økonomi til retspolitik til soft power i udenrigspolitikken. Stemmer man på partier, der behandler kriminelle med nænsom humanistisk pædagogik, importerer masser af voldelige mænd fra den tredje verden, og aktivt støtter imødekommelse af kvindefjendske skikke i offentlige institutioner fortjener man ingen medlidenhed.

    Kvinderne er faktisk den gruppe, som har mest at miste ved en blødsøden retspolitik, masseimport af prædatoriske udlændinge, og nægtelse af retten til effektivt selvforsvar. Men alligevel er kvinder ofte dem, der støtter fortsættelse af selvmordskursen.

    Du har selvfølgelig ret i, at det er muligt, at folk stemmer på f.x muslimvenlige partier, til trods for at de ønsker en stram retspolitik, eller andre der stemmer på venstrefløjen, fordi de snævert ønsker en progressiv omfordelingspolitik. Men faktisk tror jeg ikke, den første prioritet er helt intetsigende for, hvvilke andre moralske standpunkter folk indtager. Jeg er eksempelvis ret overbevist om, at folk der stemmer på venstrefløjen, fordi de ønsker en humanistisk udlændingepolitik næppe støtter en hård retspolitik, eller en skrap udenrigspolitik over for slyngelstater. Det er teoretisk muligt at adskille holdningen til x fra holdningen til y og z, men hvis mennesker støtter x, fordi de er humanister, vil de samme mennesker også med stor sandsynlighed støtte eller modsætte sig y og z betinget af deres humanistiske indstilling.
    Hvis en person stemmer på et parti ud fra dets udlændingevenlige politik, vil jeg nærmest som en selvfølge forvente, at vedkomne også er for en soft on crime retspolitik og for appeasement i udenrigspolitikken. Det afgørende er ikke, hvad folk prioriterer, men hvorfor de prioriterer som de gør. Istedet for at spørge en person, om vedkomne prioriterer udlændingepolitikken over retspolitikken, vil jeg hellere skære til benet og spørge, om vedkomne bekender sig til humanismen. Hvis svaret er ja, er jeg så godt som sikker på, at vedkomne også er imod eksempelvis effektivt selvforsvar, nultolerance i retspolitikken og hellere vil omskole kriminelle end at bure dem inde på livstid. De humanistiske præferencer lader sig ikke begrænse til et politikområde men farver somregel personens holdninger til udlændinge-, rets-, og udenrigspolitik.

    På den baggrund kan man godt argumentere for, at selvom alle ikke kan stemme på et parti med 100 % spiselig politik, deler de partiets moralske grundholdninger, og må derfor påtage sig et medansvar for samfundets genrelle moralske udvikling. Hvis jeg stemmer på SF, fordi jeg kan lide deres miljøpolitik, er det selvfølgelig teoretisk muligt, at jeg ikke er soft on crime og gerne ønsker muslimer hen hvor pebret gror, men stemmer jeg alligevel på SF, skal jeg være ret uvidende eller ligeglad med alt andet partiet støtter, for ikke at vide, hvad jeg er med til at fremme.

    Kommentar af PerH | maj 17, 2009 | Svar

Skriv et svar

Udfyld dine oplysninger nedenfor eller klik på et ikon for at logge ind: Logo

Du kommenterer med din konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterer med din Google+ konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med din Twitter konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Facebook photo

Du kommenterer med din Facebook konto. Log Out /  Skift )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: