Taxpayer Disarmament is the more accurate name for what some call “Gun Control”. It is a government policy that attempts to deny the most basic of human rights, that of self-defense and defense of loved ones.

Taxpayer Disarmament is when a mugger, murderer, torturer or rapist knows, thanks to government policy, that his victim is very unlikely to have a (legal) weapon to deter him (or her.)

Taxpayer Disarmament is when people must fear death or violence to themselves or their families, based on their race, religion or political beliefs, and know they have no practical means or legal right to resist.

Taxpayer Disarmament is an enabler for murder, torture, rape, mutilation, political terror, and other crimes. Is it moral, or admirable, to support laws and politicians that create situations like those above, or allow them to persist?

But some of you maybe thinking, but isn’t that is what the police are for? To protect me for these terrible things. Let me ask you a few leading questions:

  1. How long does it typically take the police to answer a 911 emergency call?
  2. If you are cornered in a dark alley, or your door is in the process of being broken down, will you have time to dial 911? And, when the police finally do arrive, are you sure they’ll actually help you?
  3. Where were the police during Columbine or Virginia Tech? Did the police protect the victims of those tragedies


Did the police prevent a stalker from disfiguring and partly blinding Linda Riss. Ms Riss is a woman who repeatedly requested a pistol permit from the NYC police, to deter a man who was stalking her. They refused, but also refused to provide her any protection. Ultimately, the stalker threw acid in her face, disfiguring and partly blinding her stating, “If I can’t have you, I’ll fix you so no one else will want you either.”

How often have we heard of similar threats (many of them carried out)?

Ronald Dixon, is a Jamaican immigrant and father of two who served in the U.S. Navy from 1994 to 1997 in “weapons ordnance” and now holds down two computer-related jobs. On Dec. 14, 2002, Dixon caught an intruder rifling through drawers in his son’s room in his home in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Mr. Dixon fired two shots from his 9 mm pistol, wounding the suspected burglar in the chest and groin.

The burglar turned out to be a career criminal with a 14-page rap sheet. He’d been arrested 19 times and been convicted of criminal trespass, burglary and attempted assault. Still, authorities charged Mr. Dixon with illegal possession of a firearm when they discovered his legally purchased gun was not registered in New York. (He had tried to register it, without success.) He served time in the same jail as his attacker.

Why is it considered moral (by some) to deny these victims an effective means to deter these violent attackers?

How much is a life worth?

By Law, a bank guard can care a gun to protect his employer’s money but, a parent here can’t be legally armed to protect his/her children outside of home.

America has approximately 25,000 laws on the books at all levels of government to regulate firearm ownership, yet violence goes unabated. Will another 25,000 laws accomplish anything, other than to force victimhood on law-abiding citizens?

The hoplophobes latest tactic? Identifying the death of any armed home invader or rapist at the hands of his intended victim as a “murder,” in 2006 they launched a Web site opposed to self-defense laws, dubbed [This site has since been taken down and the domain name is up for grabs and links to site advertising porn hosting but the Internet Archive has captures which can be found at].

The site stated “It’s Not a Movie. It’s the Law,” said the Web site. “The NRA is working to pass a law that makes murder legal in the United States. It’s been called the ‘Shoot First,’ ‘Make My Day,’ or ‘Deadly Force’ law, but call it what you want, it’s a License to Murder. … One killer has already been set free, and other criminals and their lawyers are already drooling at the thought of using the NRA’s ‘Shoot First’ law as a legal defense.”

Though in fairness to them, it wasn’t hard for them to make that irrational leap as the FBI Uniformed Crime Report, killing someone in defense of your life, liberty and property has been defined as “Justifiable Homicide.”

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, these are lies. Shooting in self-defense is not “murder.”

Opponents of such laws as ‘Shoot First,’ ‘Make My Day,’ or ‘Deadly Force’ law said it would make places “like the Wild, Wild West” — the same thing they said in Denver Co passed the first of the nations “Make My Day” laws and when Florida enacted a law requiring county sheriffs to issue concealed carry permits to anyone who qualified.

In all cases, they were wrong.

But for some reason, the idea that Americans should be “allowed” to defend themselves against would-be rapists and other dangerous assailants — a right enshrined in the Second and 14th amendments, though by no means originating there — allows these people no rest.

They make no bones about it: Rather than see us take responsibility for the defense of our own homes and families, they would prefer that we all (to borrow the title of the excellent book) “Dial 911 and Die.”