Recently, a dear friend and fellow gun-owner traveled East to attend a bachelor party. It is often said that if you remember anything about a bachelor party, it probably wasn’t that good. However, it was one of the few (okay, very few) sober moments of the weekend that my friend found to be the most memorable. In that moment, he learned something profound about the entire gun-bigotry movement.
You see, this particular bachelor party took place in the belly of the proverbial beast, New York City. There, my friend wound up at the bar with another young man who turned out to be one of the city’s Assistant District Attorneys. Upon discovering this, my friend asked the ADA about something that had been weighing heavily on his mind: The legal implications of using a firearm in defense of a stranger outside one’s residence.
Well, judging by this one young man, New York City has failed to learn the lesson that Kitty Genovese ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese ) gave her life to teach us.
Instead, this particular species of government functionary could apparently only process so many big words at a time, and responded simply with “If you have an unlicensed gun, I’m going to prosecute you.”
What followed was a tense, highly unpleasant exploration of the mind of our oppressors. The ADA wouldn’t debate the merits of his raging anti-gun positions beyond a terse “I don’t want to talk about it”, but took great delight in reiterating his ability to prosecute my friend at whim, based entirely on his hatred of privately-owned guns and his personal feelings on any given situation. He even went so far as to suggest that he would prosecute even if my friend (who doesn’t live in New York) was not in violation of any local gun laws!
Needless to say, my intrepid pal was more than a little shaken by the encounter. But having looked into the dull, glassy eyes of government run amok, he learned something: Deep down, gun-bigots in government aren’t worried about what guns will do to us. They’re worried about what guns will do to their own egos.
Why do these deluded individuals constantly tell us that it’s their job to protect us when any fool knows that the police are essentially never able to stop a violent crime in progress? Why do they find it so upsetting that some free Americans can protect themselves without their “help”?
Think about it this way. If you worked at the post office, and someone said “We don’t need mail anymore. We’ve got email now. It’s faster, cheaper, and easier.” How would you feel? How would you respond to someone who told you that they can do your job better than you can, and that they don’t need you anymore?
Now imagine that instead of delivering mail, you deliver security. Or, at least, you think you do. And now someone is telling you that they don’t need your elaborate machinery of justice, because they have the right and the ability to deal justly with their attackers themselves. Your entire career, which you pursued at great expense, has been declared second-rate compared to three pounds of forged steel and springs.
Makes you a little afraid, doesn’t it?
You see, to these people, the real victim of a self-defense shooting isn’t the criminal, and it isn’t the righteous shooter. It’s their sense of self-importance. They went to law school. They went to the police academy. They work in a dingy office all day for well below what they’d make in the private sector. How dare you take the power out of their hands just because you have $600, a clean record, and the God-given right to defend yourself?
Because to them, it’s impossible that God gave you that right. Because in their little world of wielding state power as they see fit, they ARE God.
And this sickness doesn’t stop between the Hudson and Jersey Rivers. It has hounded free people for years.
When the United Kingdom stripped her citizens of the basic right of self defense in 1953, MPs arguing for the measure insisted that it was their duty, not yours, to protect you, and that carrying a weapon constituted an insult to government by suggesting that they couldn’t keep order. The fact that they actually couldn’t protect you is immaterial. They just hated being reminded of it. A subject of the crown might actually save their own life with a weapon, but they would do irreparable damage to their government’s feelings. One look at Britain today tells us which concern they found to be more important, and shows us the terrible price people pay to keep their government happy.
Meanwhile on our own shores, Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, one of the most loathsome individuals ever to occupy a government office, stated that gun ownership represented “anarchy, not order under law—a jungle where each relies on himself for survival.”
If Clark does not wish for us to rely on ourselves for survival, then on whom should we rely? On him, of course. As the titular head of our criminal justice system, Mr. Clark apparently found it just too painful to imagine that there were people in this country who weren’t living every day solely by his own benevolence. And I’m sure we’d all be perfectly safe under the watchful eye of a man who enthusiastically donated his time and energy to Saddam Hussein’s legal defense.
Some gun-bigots may tell you they’re disarming you for your own good, but you have to be pretty deluded to believe that one can be helped by helplessness. Others may insist that you have to give up your guns for the benefit of “society”, a group that supposedly includes you but in fact consists merely of the people who elected said politician to loot you of your wealth and freedom.
But the truth is that all of them want you disarmed because your gun declares to the world that you don’t really need their help, more loudly than any muzzle blast. The fact is, they need YOU. They need you to need them, to want them, to let them know every day what a mess you’d be without their busy bodying. And if they can’t convince you that you need them, they’ll just strip your rights away until you really do.
And then they’ll fail you anyway, like they always have.