Up-Arming the Public

Does being a member of a “civilized society” require that the “civilized” give up their right to protect their own person and property in favor of the collective protection of law enforcement?

That is really what the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment folks are saying. Leave it to the police. Shelter in place, cower down and hide under your desk or lock yourself in the bathroom. Don’t engage an attacker. Don’t get involved.

In short, be docile and pray you aren’t the victim of choice. You don’t need a Red Ryder BB gun – you’ll just put your eye out.

We have all seen what happens when seconds count and the police are minutes, sometimes many minutes, away (in Detroit, it could be an hour).

We have also heard the statements from public officials and police noting the need for the cops to “up-arm” with military hardware due to better armed and more vicious criminals, yet in the face of the up-arming strategies of law enforcement, the public is told that we must disarm, that we have no or extremely limited rights to possess and carry weaponry.

So what are we supposed to believe?

Using the same reasons as the police forces do, it would seem that no citizen should be denied the right to own a weapon just as capable and deadly as the police arm themselves with.

Humans are animals, and as such are subject to the same stimulus/response behavioral modification as all animals. When humans are denied the ability to protect themselves, they lose the skills and confidence necessary to do so – and the animals that prey on the general public also learn that these people are the most vulnerable. There is no greater confidence builder for a violent criminal than to know his potential victim will be unarmed – especially in the case of sexual assault of a woman or the abuse of a child.

What it comes down to is this – every time any one of us rolls up an on-ramp to a major thoroughfare during a rush hour, we are placing our lives in the hands of thousands of other drivers. We trust that through the requirements of licensure that each driver possess a minimum level of skill at operating a vehicle and that they have at least enough common sense and decorum to obey the laws and operate their vehicle safely. We also expect that the have performed enough upkeep to assure that their vehicles are not an imminent danger to others on the road.

Because of these conditions, we have an expectation of the behavior of other drivers, a predictability of sorts.

It is the same with guns. If guns were as ubiquitous as cars or cell phones and every American was trained in their safe use, the fear of them would disappear. We would no more worry about our neighbor down the street owning a gun than we would backing our vehicle out of our driveway each morning.

The paranoia of the anti-gun crowd is driven by fear, ignorance and distrust of others. There rationale is that if they disarm everybody, then they aren’t at risk. If they just ignore threats and put up enough “gun free zone” signs – that will prevent guns from being brought into those areas and there is no need for individual ownership of guns.

Since the police are telling the public that even the smaller cities and towns need SWAT and they need body armor, automatic weapons and bomb resistant military surplus MRAP vehicles to “protect” us, that argument falls flat.

The Ninth Circuit, commonly known as the Ninth Circus, had a moment of lucidity yesterday and struck down California’s restrictive carry permit regulations.

13 thoughts on “Up-Arming the Public

  1. The car-gun analogy has been used before, but never so well! This is a great piece, Utah. If we cannot assume that our fellow Americans have the maturity and common sense to handle guns as well as we do cars, then the American Experiment has failed.
    I would like borrow a couple of paragraphs; no harm will come to them, but I want to see if I can change someone’s mind with your argument.

  2. Does being a member of a “civilized society” require that the “civilized” give up their right to protect their own person and property in favor of the collective protection of law enforcement?

    NO! No society that demand the individual surrender that which cannot be surrendered (i.e. their Natural Rights) can NEVER be ‘civilized.’

    • I have a question which I think gets at the heart of the Confusion many have about Constitutionality and the Bill of Rights and States / Individual rights.

      Perhaps Texas95 can lend some dialogue on this as well.

      I heard John Lott talking about the 9th Circuit ruling re: San Diego County last night. And it occured to me that the Bill of Rights has been ruled against illegally for a LONG time especially wrt the 2nd amendment. The 9th and 10th amendments say essentially the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Const. to the States are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people. The 9th says:

      “The enumeration inthe Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE others retained by the People.”

      Thus the fact that there are ANY restrictions on Citizens obtaining Arms anywhere……the Illinois laws, California laws, In DC which the SC ruled against BTW…… all of these “Restrictions” on gun ownership are in fact ILLEGAL. Any law restricting, fining, registrration, fees etc are in effect in DIRECT opposition to the 2ND Amendment.

      Further, there was a ruling Against Illinois……which is Good. However Lott mentioned a FEE and “State Requirements”…..in other words State “Hoops” that have to be Paid and jumped through BEFORE the State will “allow” a Person to excercise their 2ND Amendment (Natural Law) Rights !! It was mentioned San Diego County might try to counter the 9th Circuit Rulling with a similar “Scheme” as Illinois. Lott also mentioned a long established Supreme Court ruling against a Penny TAX on newspapers…..the SC essentially saying that …”you can’t TAX a Fundamental Right “….!!!!!

      There is a term….”Constitutional Carry”…..which gets at this issue. In other words “We the People” have this 2nd Amendment Right…..and any Restriction, Fee, registration etc…is patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and States or Local Jurisdiction do NOT have a legal right to deny you your Rights as Defined in the Constitution/ Bill of Rights ..

      • The language of the 2nd Amendment is clear: the Feds have ZERO authority to prevent us from keeping and BEARING (i.e. openly carrying — without permit) ARMS (i.e. ANY weapon of war/defense).

        The founders did not realize we would go stupid in the future, so they did not see the need to explain to our stupid selves that the militia is ALL men of military age (typically those 18-20 years old and up)

        Nor did the founders believe we would ever openly embrace tyranny, so they did not think we would buy the LIE that the 2nd Amendment is about sporting. The founders knew the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the means to defend against THE GOVERNMENT!

        The truth here is simple: we have gone stupid and weak and will accept any promise we are given if it means we do not have to trouble ourselves.

        Now, leave your belongings with me and get on the train. It’ll be alright…trust me 🙂

            • Did you hear the John Lott interview ??

              It was very positive….. Pro2nd Amendment-ruings in DC, Illinois and California …. wodda thunk !

              • No, sorry, I didn’t. But I did hear a local guy today, Burnie Thompson. Apparently the NRA is OPPOSING the “2nd Amendment Preservation Act” in Florida because — according to them — if it passes, it could undermine “good” federal gun control laws.

                Excuse me, but how can ANY Federal gun control law be “good” when they are ALL unconstitutional???

                I fear the NRA is more concerned with preserving their power in DC as a lobby 😦

                And since the FL GOP Senators are hiding behind the NRA on this Act, I see nothing more than another example of Party/Special interest politics in the whole thing.

                Yet ANOTHER reason to eliminate ALL organized politics (if anyone were to ask me, which I know they won’t 🙂 )

                • It is indeed the GOP hiding behind the NRA.

                  I must admit I am a bit conflicted about the NRA because of positions like this. It has kept me from joining. They would Still remain a Power if they pushed an agenda of Pure Pro-2nd amendment Sans gun control laws…..because the Progressives will ALWAYS be lurking to try and steal our rights.

                • Joe, I feel for you, but I fear that man is programmed to organize and delegate, and organizations take on a life of their own, becoming more interested in their own preservation than in the reason for which they came into being.
                  Any attempt to change the political landscape must take human nature into account, Many businesses, especially large multinationals, are just as laden with bureaucracy as any government; substituting private initiative for governmental, therefore, will not always result in savings or responsiveness.
                  You will get many to agree that Most organizations are corrupt; the trick is to make them see the rot in their own foundations; believe me, it is there.

  3. The only rational and logical conclusion is government believes it will be forcing the law abiding individual to do things the individual will refuse if he/she has the means allowing them to refuse…

    Why? Read on:

    Law enforcement understands criminals do not follow the law. Only law abiding persons follow the law.

    Government acknowledges criminals are becoming more dangerous and explains government must “up-arm” to protect itself.

    There is no duty of the government to protect the individual.

    Now, government seeks to disarm “the people”, but only the law abiding persons. Thereby rendering the individual defenseless, at the mercy of any “stronger” or armed opponent. Whether the opponent is a common criminal or a government bureaucrat.

    End result; government seeks to force its will upon the common individual.

    Every individual should ask:

    What is government planning for, or know, is a potential or probable event, that government is preparing for?

    Why does government find it necessary to disarm the law abiding citizen?

    The only rational and logical conclusion is government believes it will be forcing the law abiding individual to do things the individual will refuse if he/she has the means allowing them to refuse…

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.