Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56...

Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56, enacted in 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.  This is the directive that essentially designates military bases as gun free zones:

"It is DoD policy that:...

b. Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms. However, the overriding factors in determining whether or not to arm are the mission and threat. Arming DoD personnel (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) shall be limited to missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DoD assets or persons’ lives. DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties."

While there are some who will point to the last sentence as giving the CO of a base discretion to arm all of the personnel under his/her command if he/she believes it necessary, the emphasis is on "designated staff" and is limited by the previous directives that such a designation is limited to "missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DoD assets or persons’ lives," further limited to "the mission and the threat."  The obvious intent of the directive is to keep the number of armed personnel as small as possible as a matter of course, and is limited primarily to missions in which there is a clear and present threat to stores/assets that are of a strategic nature; most of our bases do not merit armed protection under those definitions.  

However, on 16 Sept. 2013 NBC posted a report of attacks on military bases going back to 1994.  There have been no fewer than 16 shootings on stateside bases, many involving multiple victims  (A History of Shootings at Military Installations in the US| NBC4 Washington).  This report does not take into account attacks on military bases overseas that could have been prevented if our personnel had been allowed to defend themselves, such as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut (sentries were required to keep their weapons at condition 4).

Trusting the safety of our military personnel to private security companies or locally hired indigenous personnel cannot be tolerated any longer.  Requiring military personnel who serve in a base security capacity to keep weapons at condition 4 is no longer acceptable.

Our personnel are the best trained and disciplined in the world.  They know how to exercise restraint when restraint is called for; they also know how to unleash targeted destruction when necessary.

Let our military personnel do what they are trained to do - terminate threats with extreme prejudice!  Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56!

Do more than "like" this thread if you agree - pass it on and contact your legislators ASAP.

I am including a sample letter below that you can cut and paste into an email or word processor:

To the Honorable (add title/name of legislator):

NBC News recently released a report (16 Sept. 2013) that documents no fewer than 16 shootings that have occurred on stateside military bases since 1995; many involved multiple victims.  Their report does not take into account attacks on United States military personnel that have occurred on overseas bases, such as the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, which could have been prevented if sentries had not been required to keep their weapons at condition 4 (no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber).

The attacks all have one thing in common: each could have been prevented or limited if our trained and disciplined military personnel had been allowed to carry the weapons on which they were trained and were allowed to respond accordingly.

Trusting the safety of our military personnel to private security companies or locally hired indigenous personnel cannot be tolerated any longer.  Requiring military personnel who serve in a base security capacity to keep weapons at condition 4 is no longer acceptable.
Our personnel are the best trained and disciplined in the world.  They know how to exercise restraint when restraint is called for; they also know how to unleash targeted destruction when necessary.

However, DOD Directive 5210.56 essentially limits armed personnel on military bases to military police or those guarding strategic stores and assets.  The recent shooting at the United States Navy Yard (Washington, D.C.) vividly demonstrates that this directive is woefully inadequate to protect our military personnel.

Trusting the safety of our military personnel to private security companies or locally hired indigenous personnel cannot be tolerated any longer.  Requiring military personnel who serve in a base security capacity to keep weapons at condition 4 is no longer acceptable.

It is to repeal DOD Directive 5210.56.  Let those who defend this nation with the weapons on which they were trained use those weapons to defend themselves.

Arm our military personnel!

Military security for military bases!

No more "shelter in place" orders!

Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56 - NOW!

Sincerely,

Pres. Obama's Speech Against US Involvement In syria....

I love it when speeches made by senators come back to bite them as presidents! I have taken the liberty of making a few very minor changes to this speech:

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war speech, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My forbears signed up to fight wars in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific. They saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; they heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. They fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and they did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported the administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Hillary Clinton and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like John Kerry to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through its worst years since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Bashar Hafez al-Assad. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, launched armed attacks against his own people. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Syrian people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Assad poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Syrian economy is in shambles, that the Syrian military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Syria will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Syria without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Obama? Let's finish the fight with terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that effectively targets foreign threats while protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. You want a fight, President Obama?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work in Syria, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of chemical, biological, and nuclear agents, and that nations like Iran never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Obama?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Obama? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through sensible development of our enormous domestic oil and gas resources.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

This speech was originally delivered by then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2002 in Chicago to protest US involvement in Iraq. To see how minor the changes I made are, view the transcript of the original speech: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

Why The Fuss About The Million Muslim March On 9-11?

Some people are asking, "why the fuss about the million muslim march on 9/11?" The answers are right here in the petition letter that was submitted to DC for event permit approval (I have emphasized the key thoughts):

"Assalam Alaikum Brothers and Sisters,

We at AMPAC (American Political Action Committee) are planning an historic event for 9.11.13 where one million Muslims will march to Washington D.C. and demand that our civil rights be protected by our government.

We are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our 1st amendment . We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly we are asking for the release of the 9/11 commission report to the American people. 

On 9.11.01 our country was forever changed by the horrific events in New York. The entire country was victimized by the acts done on that day. Muslim and Non Muslim alike were traumatized BUT WE AS MUSLIMS CONTINUE 12 YEARS LATER TO BE VICTIMIZED BY BEING MADE THE VILLAINS. TO THIS DAY EVERY MEDIA OUTLET AND ANTI ISLAMIC ORGANIZATION HAS COMMITTED SLANDEROUS AND LIBEL STATEMENTS AGAINST US AS MUSLIMS AND OUR RELIGION OF ISLAM.

Yet our Government either sits idly by and does nothing to protect our freedoms or it exacerbates the problem with its constant war on terrorism in Islamic countries, congressional hearings on Islam in America, and its changes to the NDAA law.
THESE LIES TOLD TO THE AMERICAN POPULATION HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO DO TRUE DAWA. Why do we have to defend our religion while doing Dawa? WHY CAN'T WE JUST SHARE THE PERFECTION OF THE QURAN AND THE BEAUTY OF OUR BELOVED PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SWS)? 

It is time for us as Muslims in America to stop being defensive and start being proactive by using our right to vote and our freedom of assemble and let our voices be heard by our country and the world. Stand with us help us fight the injustices being committed against us. 

Help us to wake the American citizen up to the truth and together Muslim and Non Muslim can take our country back to its true Democracy which is "For the people by the people". Our Prophet in his final message told us: "Whoever sees an injustice should set it right by means of his hand; if not, by his tongue; if not, then by his heart and that is considered to be the weakest of faith." And more to the point "If my nation are afraid to say to the oppressor, 'O oppressor!', then there is no hope in them."

Sincerely your Brothers and Sisters in Islam

On behalf of AMPAC

Isa Hodge

Chief of Operations "Million Muslim March"

The chief points are, 1) Muslims were not responsible for 9/11, and 2) muslims are so busy defending themselves against this lie that they cannot proselytize (do dawa). 

The founder of AMPAC, MD Rabbi Alam, is a so-called "truther." He believes that the Jews were the architects of 9/11. In his mind, the American media and government have been spreading zionist lies about 9/11 to divert us from the "truth." In another statement posted on the AMPAC web site, he states his belief that we have been "brainwashed" into believing that muslims were responsible for 9/11. He also states that Al Qaeda is a myth.

Why are we being brainwashed? So that we will not embrace the "perfection of the Quran and the beauty of [our] beloved Prophet Muhammad." In his mind, if we weren't being fed these lies, we would all embrace islam - which is the ultimate goal of islam. In other words, resistance is NOT futile, and we REFUSE TO BE ASSIMILATED.

To Mr. Alam I give the following affirmation: "Sh'ma Yisraeil, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord)," Deut. 6:4, and "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever," Heb. 13:8.

Patriot's Day 2013...

I Remember.

The REAL Reason Obama Wants To Involve Us In Syria - And Why We Cannot Permit It...

Egyptian Official ties Obama's Brother to Brotherhood

THIS is why the President is pushing so hard for us to back the rebels. It has very little to do with gas attacks on civilians; there is evidence that BOTH sides of the conflict have used these weapons. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the president's brother is the chief financier of the Muslim Brotherhood. The same brother who is about to be added to Egypt's terrorist watch list for his activities with the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/egypt-eyes-obamas-brother-for-terror-list/). The same brother that Egypt wants to extradite from the US (yes, he lives here and has made many trips to the White House) to answer for his role as one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The president's push to become involved in Syria has everything to do with a PERSONAL AGENDA.

We cannot allow him to use our brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, friends, sons and daughters who serve in the UNITED STATES military (not HIS military, as he referred to it while at the G20 meeting: "My military assured me that we could act today, tomorrow, a month from now, that we could do so proportionally, but meaningfully," http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/06/admitting-public-opposition-on-syria-obama-vows-to-push-forward-transcript/#ixzz2eDF6HJ26) as pawns in Syria to further a family vendetta.  Further, we need to be keeping our eyes on the hearings in Egypt, as representatives of the new government are promising that evidence will be brought forth that proves Pres. Obama's administration was complicit in the terrorist activities of the Muslim Brotherhood while funneling our tax dollars to them through his brother.

We need to bringing all the pressure we can to bear on our legislators to 1) keep us from becoming involved in Syria in any way,  2) establish an independent counsel to interface with the Egyptian government to obtain copies of all available evidence they have in their possession, and 3) proceed with impeachment.  If THIS doesn't amount to high crimes committed by the president, then nothing does.

Iowa Gubernatorial Candidates Participate in "Prayer" of Thanks for Abortion.....

This show us how far we have fallen as a nation. This "prayer," which thanks God for abortion, took place in a public forum in Iowa last week, and included two gubernatorial candidates.

Text from the "prayer" includes the following:

“We give thanks, oh Lord, for the doctors, both current and future, who provide quality abortion care.”

“We pray for increased financial support for low-income women to access contraception, abortion and childcare.”

“Today, we pray for women in developing nations, that they may know the power of self-determination. May they have access to employment, education, birth control and abortion.”

“We pray for women who have been made afraid of their own power by their materialistic religion. May they learn to reject fear and live bravely.”

“Today we pray for the families who have chosen. May they know the blessing of choice.”

Beginning with Genesis 1:26-27, the Bible clearly teaches that we are created in the image of God:

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Psalm 139:13-16 teaches us that, from conception, we are created, molded by God: 

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

This is not a prayer that is even heard by the God of the Bible, even though I am certain that it absolutely fills the god of this world (Satan) with absolute glee.

It is time for the Church to rise up, to hold up the Standard given to us by God HImself. It is time for the Church to confess its sins in enabling this horrific crime to continue, in sending people like this to our government in the first place.

"Prayer" of Thanks for Abortion

Michigan Math: 10% Reduction in Police Force = 22% Reduction In Crime

The "experts" can't explain it, but Mlive published an article in their Sunday, 08/25/13, edition that demonstrates this phenomenon.

Statewide, Michigan has shed 10% of its police force, yet during the same time period, crime, including violent crime, has decreased 22%.  On a local level, Grand Rapids, MI, which has shed 17% of its police force in recent years, has seen a 33% reduction in violent crime and a similar reduction in property crime.

The "experts" have proffered various explanations, each more preposterous than the previous one.  One author posits that free access to abortion on demand accounts for the drop.  Another points to the switch to lead-free gasoline, while others posit that baby boomers were crime-prone and are now too old to commit crime.  Yet another "expert" points to the utopia that is Obama's new America.  Being unable to build any consensus among these experts, Mlive turned to the leadership of the police community, who attribute the reduction to technology - especially surveillance cameras and cell phones.

Long story short, they continue to grasp at straws when the most obvious answer is in front of them.

I have been saying it for years: THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE!!!

In roughly the same time period as the reduction in crime, private gun ownership has skyrocketed; nearly 500,000 private citizens have concealed pistol licenses. As the article points out at the end, despite what the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg, and the rest of the gun grabbing world would like you to believe, more legal gun ownership does not equal more crime or even more gun accidents!!! This is simply the result of private citizens exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights.  

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Michigan is bleeding police officers. In the past decade, enough cops have been cut to equal the elimination of all Michigan State Police officers and the entire sworn force in Grand Rapids, the state’s second-largest city.

But there’s the conundrum, an MLive Media Group investigation found.

Despite the decline, you have never been safer in Michigan from serious crimes in a decade.

People don’t get robbed as much, or assaulted, or raped.

Cars thefts are rarer by half.

Your wallets and purses are less likely to be taken.

At the same time, there are fewer police in your neighborhood.

It is an enigma for cops, who hope more officers mean less crime.

The MLive investigation analyzed a decade of police manpower and crime statistics in the state since 2003. The analysis covered more than 500 departments, and 2.3 million reported crimes.

The conclusion was surprising. Even as communities bemoan the loss of sworn officers, serious crimes continue to drop in most places across the state.

So why do we need more police – or even as many as we have?

The answer is perplexing for departments that push for greater staffing as the economy picks up, but struggle to find statistical support.

“I’ve got command staff and officers that want to make the argument that crime numbers are up as our numbers have dropped, and it can’t be done,” said Lt. Patrick Merrill, an analyst for the Grand Rapids Police Department.  

Less Cops Equals Less Crime

 The article tries to offer several explanations for these results, including free access to abortion, unleaded gasoline, even Obama. An accompanying article supposedly from the police perspective tries to pin these results on better technology - especially surveillance systems and access to cell phones. THEY refuse to acknowledge the facts. When a study concluded that, in the more than 20 years since the passage of the federal gun free school zones act, the incidence of kids bringing weapons of all kinds to schools dropped a whole percent, "experts" immediately proclaimed that this was a direct result of the GFSZA - even though there were no "scientific" studies to back this up. But when it is revealed that crime, especially violent crime, in Michigan has dropped MORE THAN 20% STATEWIDE since the passage of our expanded CPL laws (just over 10 years), the "experts" say there is no way we can say with certainty that the drop has anything to do with the expansion of legal gun ownership and concealed carry.

Do I feel vindicated, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS SAME MEDIA GROUP CONTINUES TO PUSH FOR MORE STRICT GUN CONTROL IN MICHIGAN?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?!!!

I just faxed this article to my legislators in both DC & Lansing. I encourage the rest of you Michiganders to do the same!

Here are their fax numbers:

Carl Levin: 1-202-224-1388
Debbie Stabenow: 1-202-228-0325
Rick Snyder: 1-517-335-6863

 For the rest of our Michigan state legislators, use the link on the sidebar.

To Tip or Not To Tip....

The restaurant industry is considering abolishing tipping, instead raising their prices to pay tipped employees higher wages.

Let's get something straight - tipping used to be a reward for providing superior service.  

Somewhere along the way, greedy employers discovered that they could reduce their own costs by cutting the wages of their "tipped" employees, making the "tip" a part of the wage structure.  And since it is largely business people (in one form or another) who make it to congress to write our laws, they were able to re-write the wage laws governing the food service industry to reflect this cost cutting approach.  Nationally, tipped food service employees typically make 2/3 of minimum wage.  In Michigan, tipped employees are paid 1/3 of minimum wage, expecting that tips will make up the additional 2/3 of the employee's pay: 

"Tipped employees may be paid an hourly wage rate of $2.65 an hour provided they receive tips which combined with the hourly wage, equals or exceeds the minimum hourly wage rate listed above and provide a signed tip statement," Michigan Minimum Wage Law.

So the answer isn't to abolish tipping, the answer is to abolish a law that enshrined corporate greed by permitting employers to pay tipped employees lower wages.  Restore tips to their previous status as bonuses given for superior service.

President to Sign UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Over Break - in Violation of the Expressed Will of the Senate....

The news headlines are telling us that President Obama will sign the UN ATT during the legislative break.  

There is just one minor problem:  the Senate has already disapproved the signing of this treaty.

The US Senate web site provides the following details regarding the ratification of treaties:

"The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s)," (US Senate and Treaties).

On March, 23, 2013, the same week the UN ATT was passed by the UN Security Council, the US Senate, in an early morning vote, voted 53-46 to reject a resolution to ratify the treaty.  The Senate has already expressed its will concerning this treaty; the president has no legal grounds to sign the UN ATT.  Once again, however, the president is going to unilaterally act in violation of our system of checks and balances.

One more impeachable offense on the part of the president.

"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.