What’s the Use?

I remember a day when I was about eight or nine, and I was living in my grandmother’s house, on the city side of Wawatosa, near Milwaukee.  In those days, my older brother and I didn’t get along very well.  We often ended up on opposite side of neighborhood squabbles.

On this particular day, my brother had sided with a large family down the block, and I was with the two boys from next door, and a squabble turned into a “gang fight”.  My two friends and I attacked with our toy machine guns and grenade launchers.  As we came around the corner, we encountered the opposition, which had come prepared with hoes, rakes and bricks!  Silly kids things being what they are, we made a bunch of gun noises, proceeded to evade getting hit with sharp tools and bricks for a few minutes, then retreated.

Of course the funny part of the story is that we had no real weapons at all, yet we were trying to stop an onslaught that could have literally killed us.  Lately, I have been thinking about that day.   What if we had been in a real fight and we were using real guns against sticks and stones?  What chance would the sticks and stone have had?  This is something about which we should be thinking, as the government continues to undermine our right to due process, while the Obama administration continues to fight for passage of a UN  resolution to ban personal firearms.

Why is it that the idea of citizens having guns is so repulsive to so many people?  Nobody has a problem with people owning cars.  Cars can be deadly weapons.  As a bicycling enthusiast, I have been assaulted dozens of times by cars.  One guy even tried to hit me with his baseball bat, so I suppose we should ban those as well.  There are, of course, many who can kill people with their hands.  So we should ban people from having hands.  Then, just for good measure, we should throw in the aforementioned hoes, rakes, and bricks, not to speak of axes, sledge hammers, and, as every good horror movie watcher will attest, saws and knives.  Did I miss anything?

An armed people is a protected people.  The Second Amendment isn’t the only thing protecting people from being oppressed by it’s own government.  There is also a law preventing the quartering of armies among civilians.  The entire point was the knowledge that armies tend to fill a vacuum of power.  If the citizens give up their right to be armed and to protect their own property, the army will violate those boundaries.  The British army did it 250 years ago.  It will happen again.

But isn’t if true that guns kill people?  I have never seen a gun jump off a rack, take aim and shoot someone.  People kill people.  The same people who rob people, cheat people, exploit people and dominate people.  If I am a hunter, I have been to gun safety and learned to respect and protect the rights of others.  I’m not going to kill people, unless they try to kill me.  I am only going to defend myself.  If you take guns away from the citizen, you are giving power to the people who don’t read the rules or follow them.  There will be more dead citizens.

Well, this is an old argument.  But, as I look around my defense contract town and see the immense fire power of the military, it occurs to be how much trouble the citizen could be in if the military ever decides to train guns on civilians.  This is part of the dialog as well.  By seeking to label all citizens with guns as unstable fringe wackos, it becomes much easier to justify attacking and disarming them at all cost.  After all, if we don’t kill them, they might kill “innocent” people.  If you don’t believe me, think about David Koresh and the Waco raid.  How many innocent women and children were killed in an effort to protect them from a madman?  Is it just coincidence that the acting Attorney General whose findings cleared the government of any wrong-doing was non other than Obama’s present Attorney General, Eric Holder?

I’m not going to say the David Koresh wasn’t full of himself.  What I am saying is that we must judge whether or not a state is totalitarian by how it acts.  In a free country, stupid people are given wide latitude to be stupid.  In a totalitarian country, the force of arms is used to make people abide by societal norms.  Refusal to comply is ground for annihilation.   In the case of Waco, no talk that the government made a mistake was tolerated.  When a government can do no wrong, its people can have no rights.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law and Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s