PDA

View Full Version : Another Anti-Liberty Gun Nut Gets It Wrong



thedrifter
05-10-05, 05:10 AM
Another Anti-Liberty Gun Nut Gets It Wrong

One of the things the mainstream media loathe about the Blogosphere (and which I love) is our near-light-speed reaction time, especially to give the other side.

I am speaking of Michelle Cottle’s article in the May 9th, 2005 edition of TIME, Shoot First, Regret Legislation Later, [Essay, last page] as Ms. Cottle reflects fairly accurately not facts or principles, but the true mocking hysteria in the anti-liberty lobby.

That’s right, anti-liberty.

Second Amendment enthusiasts aren’t wild about guns, we’re wild about Liberty. And the Left is not against guns, they are against Liberty and all the symbols of it, because without a crisis, Liberalism has no sense of purpose. Self-reliance would quash most crises. See the connection?

When the anti-liberty crowd wishes to confiscate weapons anywhere, the only known result is that their confiscation leaves people defenseless. In Australia, in the U.K., in South Africa and in the Philippines, gun-free has spelled disaster for the innocent. This is not good for the country.

There are too many givers in our society to leave defenseless and confiscators don’t recognize the fruit of one’s labor sufficiently to be entrusted with that kind of clout. They loathe Liberty.

Ms. Cottle begins her article laying out her gun-family background, and then (here it comes, folks) the other shoe drops, what Talk Show Host Laura Ingraham calls the But-Monkey, (that yes, but mentality of misleading others to think at first that they understand, then exhibit that they really have no comprehension). The result is lip-service. In Ms. Cottle’s case, it reads, "But while I appreciate guns, I also appreciate the need for guns laws."

How many do we need, Ms. Cottle? We have more than 22,000 guns laws on the books. Criminals disregard them like liberals disregard facts.

I’m in favor of guns laws.. The Bill Of right is a law, isn’t it? the castle doctrine is a law, isn't it?

But the Second Amendment isn’t my chief argument on a best-evidence presentation. Liberals ignore other people’s rights when it suits them, so it works only among the rational and right-minded.

It is you, the rational, I address.

Ms. Cottle’s essay refers to the new Castle Doctrine among the laws in Florida’s right to carry books. Now that Florida believes that one’s person is also worth protecting on the street as much as in their Castle, I think they’re far ahead of any liberal arguing against concealed weapons and the tactical need to stand firm.

How so?

Because the constituent is an asset in America. The fact is that there are givers and there are takers in our society. People who work hard tend to give and criminals tend to take. Liberals make a living in the middle of this crisis pandering to takers.

Criminals also tend to ignore laws; no matter what law you write, they’ll ignore it and invade your home no matter what gun is legal or banned, and they’ll rob, rape or murder innocent people no matter what you take away from the honest citizen. Take enough away from honest citizens so that they are further injured in violent acts and you begin to erode the spirit of the community.

As with most But-Monkeys, Ms. Cottle misses the point.

More and more states are loosening up the ineffectual and unwise restrictions on guns, not so much on gun ownership, but on right to carry.

I'd like to think that three things have been learned by officials in the last decade:

1. In right to carry states, where crime is less per capita, and in Arizona where volunteers are secretly welcomed by police officers, individuals (givers) who refuse to be a victim have all the authority they need to protect themselves or another. They are, in fact, the first line of defense. I’ve written about it often.

In published articles around the country revisiting the first decades of some right to carry states, such citizens aren't reported to have interfered with police nor have they made police responses more dangerous. Instead, they seem to enjoy a kind of synergy I continue to work for.

2. Criminals don’t obey laws, but law-abiding do, and if you write laws that tie the hands of the individual, you interfere with their tax-paying ability as they become victims of violent crime. Recognized as an unacceptable transfer of wealth - and a misdirection of assets - right to carry states (and their constituents) are pleased with their enviable position of not living with the horrors, pain and wasted assets of California, Washington, D.C. and New York where they "..just can’t seem to get a handle on crime. Nothing works!"

3. An interesting mutual respect between government officials and constituents exists. I can’t really prove it, but if Alaska, Washington State, Arizona and Florida are any clue at all of how officials could treat their constituents, it looks good. For decades now, the right to carry states – now two thirds of the nation – have not regretted placing such trust in their citizens.

And that drives liberals mad! No crisis, no sense of purpose.

This would be good for those officials in touch with our realities.

As I mention in talks, I use few statistics, because it only takes a few to tell the whole story. What many articles don’t mention, and which liberals like Ms. Cottle disregard, is this: The FBI and Professor John Lott, Jr. (author of More Guns, Less Crime) agree that though about 47,000 people are shot annually, more than 2.4 million persons use a gun to thwart a crime.

This is important, because it ends the debate. Or it should for a rational person.

More than 50:1, constituents become the first line of defense in averting violent crime. And often without firing a shot. And why not? They’re on scene. And they have all the authority they need.
People who realize this tend to optimize it for the sake of their families and communities. By extension, it's good for the nation. They’re called guns nuts, but they’re actually more responsible than a liberal could hope to be. Because it works without them.

The hysteria becomes evident when they reject the true personal responsibility attitude and factual figure of more than a decade of success.

It’s increasingly obvious that as states come to appreciate more and more how personal self-defense is one big loss-prevention model, the interests of the givers in society can be cultivated and protected as liberal agenda can be pushed aside. Politely, but effectively and constructively going on without them.

One of the best messages we could send to the Left is that we intend to go on without them.

It’s good for the country to take on violent crime this way, not as vigilante as the Left carps, but as the rightful, authorized first line of defense.

As Ms. Cottle mockingly refers to this as a Dirty Harry paean to vigilanteism or as settling disputes, it is clear she cannot understand the authority homeowners, motorists and she, herself, already have for generations, not to mention that personal self-defense is much more than "a dispute".

The mischaracterization is the hysteria talking.

All that matters is that – with or without her – America understands, and that our officials get it. And they are getting it. Not because of a lobby, but because it recognizes the sovereign constituents as the first line of defense, and untying the hands of the law-abiding people who elected them is probably a very good idea.

It’s good for the country.


Ellie