The current debate over “gun control”, “gun safety” or whatever euphemism that the “progressives” have focus group tested to their advantage – overshadows a greater debate, one that the institutional left would prefer that the current debate serve as a proxy for. This is an issue that has been brought about by the Newtown school shootings, a tragedy that when reduced to its lowest common denominator was the act of an individual, Adam Lanza, to deprive other human beings of their most basic natural right – the right to live, to exist. There was no motive to take the property of theirs; no motive to capture a particular piece of territory, Lanza was only there for one reason – to kill. Whatever his motivation was, this was the end result.
Even though abortion proponents disagree what constitutes “life”, even the most radical abortion supporter will agree that life is a basic human right. Even the most craven American “progressive” has not devolved to the point that they believe that the state has the absolute right to your life. While they do want the government to control everything that you have and do (if you disagree with them), they have not reached the point of fascism and Nazism where they believe that the state has the power to decide that society is better off with you dead (we do decide that certain criminals should be punished by death but that decision is at the discretion of a jury a jury of their peers).
At least not yet, they haven’t.
Accepting that premise, it must also follow that a corollary to that most basic natural right to life is an individual’s right, actually more of an obligation, to protect that life by preventing actions against your person that deprives you or those you choose to protect, of that life.
The common idea in a “progressive” society is that we have the police to do that for us – but on a dark night while on a path through a city park, on an unlit street corner or in a rural area where a person is several minutes away from police intervention, what is there to protect you from imminent danger? What rights do single mothers with children living in a crime infested neighborhood have to protect themselves when seconds count and the police are 10 minutes away?
As far as the police, “progressives” expect that they protect us against crime and then deign to take away from them tools to do so. Through successful use of the courts, there have been significant chains placed on the police and how they can interact with a suspected criminal, and some rightly so – but when an organism is presented with a stimuli, it reacts to that stimuli and American police forces have. What we have seen is a significant move away from policing individual crime to preparation for corporate control of populations, with even the smallest of police forces buying SWAT gear, tanks and APCs and through the use of cameras and drones for the surveillance of innocent people.
The organization of police forces and their activities seem to be becoming much more fascistic – to the point that they are arresting private citizens for simply filming their actions in public space. While the American institutional left was once champions of civil liberties, they seem to only do so now when they are out of power. Their silent support for the Patriot Act is a case in point; something that was Satan’s spawn under Bush is now greeted with silence as Obama reauthorizes it and even expands on it. We are also entering the dangerous realm predicted the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, where there is an effort to institute a pre-crime system to predict criminal behavior and arrest people on that basis.
Pre-crime didn’t work out too well for Cruise in the movie and police protection isn’t really working for the people in the UK, for example. While there is a massive effort in the UK to restrict what an individual may do to protect their own persons and to replace that activity with camera surveillance and strict police authority, the actual crime rates in Wales and England are 60% HIGHER than in the US. The UK has far more home invasions than the US. Today’s Daily Mail notes that a report released yesterday that Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia – and Australia has an outright ban on semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and has imposed a very restrictive licensing system on other firearms.
Mark Steyn reports on a farmer in a rural area, Norfolk, who shot and killed a home invader and then was prosecuted for murder, convicted and sentenced to life in prison – for defending his home and family. Strict gun laws did not prevent the school shootings in Dunblane in 1996 nor did even stricter laws prevent a mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010.
Police authority, surveillance, gun bans, and rigid laws – they are not working. These are things that are designed to augment your rights, not to replace them and yet individuals have been stripped of the right to defend themselves effectively in these countries using these as an excuse and crime has soared as a result.
The right to protect one’s own life and the ability to resist the tyranny of an organized state or its agents are the basis for the conservative/libertarian/classic liberal support of the Second Amendment and the opposition to “gun control”. The Second Amendment isn’t about whether a magazine that holds 10, 20, 30 or more rounds is “needed” or whether we should or should not use an “assault” weapon to hunt deer. It isn’t about whether an individual has less of a right to own a gun than they do a car, knife or a step ladder – all of which kill more people every year than “assault” weapons.
What it is about is the capability and the ability of an individual citizen to protect their most basic natural right, their life, from threats to their person without reservation. That means the right to resist a threat no matter if it results from being one-on-one with a thug on the street, with your family during a home invasion or tyranny at the hands of a government.