Peter Alan Kasler Quote

"It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that
individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and
that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized
for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent."

by:	Peter Alan Kasler Author
Source:	SELF-RELIANCE FOR SELF-PROTECTION (Sonoma, CA, Mesquite Mountain Press, 1991)
Rating:
Categories:	Defense, Individual Rights, Law, Police, Responsibility, Safety
	Tweet

Yes, but to what point? The premise of our government is that we're all "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" and that among these are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (property). If we believe in a system of government wherein the people can alienate the inalienable, then we merely believe in a different structure than our founding fathers had in mind -- nothing more, nothing less. I personally adhere to the belief of the founders that the individual carries within themselves certain inalienable rights, that are retained by the individual, regardless of what any government (or majority of people) states otherwise (just because the majority says that pigs may be able to fly ("wikiality"), doesn't mean that such is the truth). The great "American experiment" was not merely that we could have a government "by the voice of the people" -- which forms of government have existed throughout history -- but that we rejected the idea that man needed to be regulated, licensed, and coerced into being self-governing, personally accountable, and responsible for personal actions -- can our neighbor's be trusted to act peacefully without granted privilege of movement, etc.? If the inalienable rights of one infringed upon the inalienable rights of another, then society would no longer acknowledge the infringing sovereign's liberty in expressing their inalienable rights (because such a person was found to be incapable of self-government and had to be restrained -- or rather, jailed). Restraining a burglar, for instance, from robbing my house (or my neighbor's house) is an inalienable right wherein I have the capability of delegating this right to another individual (the police). I do not, however, have the ability of taking away my peaceful neighbor's ability of protecting themselves from the same burglar; how then do I assume such a right to delegate this duty to a higher power (government) to act in my stead in disarming my neighbor? Does the government get it's power from the people, or not? Yes, the majority decides what role the government is to take in certain matters, but there are limits to the majority's consent -- and that limit is inalienable rights. Reason stares blankly at the stupidity of such an argument wherein people advance the idea that society is a magical entity wherein the majority can mystically tell my peaceful/law abiding neighbor that he is unfit to defend himself, because "the government will do it for him". ROT!  -- Logan, Memphis, TN      3
Logan, very well said; if I might add for further clarification: We The People (individually and in concert) as government have moral and absolute right to decide how best to implement the law (by rule, code, regulation, statute, etc.) for the protection of inalienable rights and, justice. Man (by government, individually, in concert with other men, of majority, or otherwise) can not create law or rightfully infringe on any lawful act of any individual.  -- Mike, Norwalk      2
This quote is exactly correct. The police wiil make a report after you are robbed and murdered and try to find the person who did it, but you better protect yourself to avoid them having to make this report.. They may even find the party that murdered you while you are looking up at the grass roots. Citizen, protect thyself.  -- jim k, austin      1
This is good and exactly right. It is not the police's fault every time a crime happens. Those here the Mikes and knucle walkers of the world who need to have a scape goat (police or government) for all of their own or societies ills are, well, they are knucle walkers and it is time to grow up. Self defense comes first if it can be had. Most of us cannot perform to the standards of the criminal mind and police are trained to overcome that higher standard. No one has ever said that the police are required to do it all. A philosophy that promotes or defends attacking police or government the very people we hire to protect society is crap.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      2
Good grief, Waffler, do you ever read the nonsense that you write? No one that writes here advocates "attacking" anyone. Do you understand the difference between "attacking" and "defending"?  -- jim k, austin      1
Waffler, you've made me smile again. The police are not at fault for every crime that happens. They are however responsible for every crime they enforce (compelled compliance, license, larceny, victimless crimes, etc.). It is, therefore, a fact of law and practical experience, that the criminals (police) that are paid by a de facto alien ethos, from ill gotten booties, for the furtherment of tyranny, do add a certain auxiliary general deterrent against other criminals. That is the only reason they are still tolerated. After WWII, those most egregious actors, acting under policing authority of their government, were prosecuted. Just because those of policing authority are acting under color of law, it does not give them right to enforce unlawful codes, rules, regulations, statutes, etc.  -- Mike, Norwalk      2
P.S., considering the source and under the context given, I will wear the title "knuckle walker" with gleeful pride.  -- Mike, Norwalk
Jim many here have responded to quotes by saying "owning guns is for defending ourselves against corrupt and power grabbing government". Can you explain and expound upon that? I asked Mike to and all he said is that Koreans defended their property when they felt that the police in So. Central LA were inadequate. He has nor have you or anyone else explained or expounded upon when it is appropriate, legal or wise to defend yourselves against police or wise to attack corrupt government. I believe little Jimmy that firing upon police regardless of the circumstances is, under law an attack. Even fighting back when being arrested is a charge of resisting arrest and is thus considered to be an attack or effort to thwart the law. Again can you tell us when you feel it is authorized to fire or otherwise use force against the police or the government.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      1
Waffler, here's a quote from Hubert Humphrey which I found on this very site: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." Gosh! Remember when liberals acted like Americans?  -- Bob, Eugene OR.      2
Waffler, my LA riot example was one specific scenario answering your request for one concrete time when deadly force was Constitutionally justified against police. Archer, Logan and others have given excellent answers to your here posed question. Your failure to read or remember such responses doesn't mean they weren't given.  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Mike here you are saying that it was constitutionally justified but it was not used. Why or why was it not used. The rioters thought it was justified because of the cops got off on beating Rodney King. The cops were wrong but you got to be inhuman not to see their side after being led on a danerous high speed chase endanerign themselves and many other innocent people. My understanding of the event and your explanation of it is that the Koreans used force against the rioters not the police. No one has given a real or hypothetical example of when deadly force can be used against police or government. If it is such an important issue with you and them I think you should repeat it over and over. Self defense and police protection are not opposites but complementaries. You need to change your thinking. The argument to fight police and govenment while appealing to some and apparently even mouthed by Humphrey is a quaint and appealing one, demonstrating people power that we love so much in our democracy and rightfully so. The fact that it has never been used to successfully combat police or government policey just shows how quaint and cute but unrealistic a notion it is. It is like the fact that a person can disrespect the nation by burning the flag. Because one can do this virtually no one does. Assuming that we really do have a right to attack the police or the "corrupt" (in ones personal opinion) government no one does it simply because it is such and easy right to exercise. If we passed a flag burning law our jails would be full of people who burn the flag just to protest the law. We love the flag voluntarily not from forced compulsion. We do not need force against our government because we turn the bums out peacefully every two years from the Congrees, 1/3 of them from the Senate, and 100% of 'em every 4 years from the White House.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      1
In our republic of balanced power, with all power originating and residing with the People. the people have hired police to represent the 'the law' as they have promised under oath to do. An armed citizenry is the balance to that. The people need the powers available to them to protect themselves -- police do not protect, they administer the law. As long as the police remain within their jurisdictions and do not attempt to usurp power by treating the people as subservient to them, then they are doing their job. That is why they require a warrant before breaking in to one's home or arresting someone. The Constitution protects us from their abuse by requiring due process. When a cop (whether private or public) points a gun at someone without warrant, to intimidate, then we have every right to point one back. It is not illegal to point a gun at anyone who is abusing another's rights with immediate theat of loss of life. When a cop pulls a gun, it is as serious as when any other person does so. I believe Waffler preaches obedience to cops because he has already waived his rights and wishes the rest of us to do the same. He cannot comprehend dissent or the price that sometimes accompanies it. There are PLENTY of corrupt cops in this world -- their office should be no protection for their own crimes.  -- E Archer, NYC      2
True, that must be why the left wants to take away our ability to defend ourselves. Waffler, I definitely have higher standards than a criminal.  -- warren, olathe      2
-- tony, mesa az
Waffler, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, etc., etc., etc. all demonstrate that under any and every conceivable circumstance, no policing agent (agency) has any duty or responsibility to individuals. The concept, a government of by and for the people, has absolutely nothing to do with the current occupying statist theocracy infesting this land. The Primary duty of police and their agencies is to protect government property (that government is in toto aloof from We The People). Lysander Spooners: A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years, has more meaning and significance now than when he wrote it. With such legal philosophers as Locke and Blackstone, Jefferson and Adams (publications of Paine) still fresh in the mind sets of Americans and British, up until about the war of Northern Aggression, there were no policing agencies - as they were considered a repugnant tyranny, abuses and usurpations by a foreign standing army with a primary duty to enforce an alien despots will (WOW ! Now that was prophetic as proven by the current set of affairs) It was well established, understood and expected that individuals (individually or in concert) were to protect them selves and, when the opportunity arose, each sovereign was required (individually or in concert - depending on circumstance) to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. It wasnt until just before the Northern War of Aggression that police departments for the first time, anywhere in the US, were established in the heart of the Fabian Socialist Northeast (Boston, New York and Philadelphia between 1835-1845). After said War, the Northern Aggressors implemented police departments everywhere to enforce their anti-natural law, anti-Constitutional law, abuses and usurpations and despotic canons and concepts. As the nation expanded west, so went the ever expanding police state. Waffler, the answer to your question, when is it ok to use arms and other forms of lethal regulation against police and greater government, the answer was given previously; all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government. I happen to be hard core committed to NON-violence but, if I were on a jury and a freeman was brought before me to judge as a peer, the fact that the victim was a police officer would be grounds for dismissal.  -- Mike, Norwalk      2
If you want a definition of gibberish, just put Waffs picture in the Webster's with gibberish printed below it.  -- jim k, austin tx      1
-- Ron w13, Or
One of the most reasoned and educated voices Logan, Thank you !!  -- Ron w13, Or      2
Logan, your comment deserves a second "VERY well said". Your comment stands the test of time.  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
I like it; as to your arbitrary: The broad nomenclature “law”, divides into multiple political philosophies – temporally rendering many mental images, understandings and exercises. Subsequent applications to said philosophies, are consistent with or, referenced to relative sources or called upon authority. – By example: 1) “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence {natural law nomenclature animates an umbrella of that which is eternal and absolute in nature} natural law) Infinite and unwavering absolutes of nature are categorically understood through assessable proficiencies such as gravity, physics, math, life, liberty and property (the constitutional law of the land). 2) Legal Positivism; Legal Positivism is arbitrary, “An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) – Legal Positivism is most often “used in opposition to natural law” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary). 3) Legal Realism; Legal Realism is arbitrary and habitually time/situation fleeting, instituted by any source, at any time regardless of natural law or legal positivism (executive, judicial, personal, etc.). 4) etc.  -- Mike, Norwalk      1

Tweet  Rate this quote! How many stars? 0 1 2 3 4 5	What do YOU think?
Your name:	Your town:     CLICK JUST ONCE!

Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email: