L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 68, March 31, 2000
The Vultures Fly High
by Victor Milan
Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise
And so they come out again to haunt us: those who uphold the right of
rapists to rape without let or hindrance; who support the right of
abusers to injure, mutilate, and kill without fear; who insist that
the weak must be placed immovably at the mercy of the strong.
The gun grabbers. The victim disarmers. The aggression empowerers.
A child is killed in Michigan. That is tragedy.
It's a tragedy when the Bush-Clinton embargo of Iraq kills a thousand
kids a month. But they're not Americans, so evidently they don't
It's a tragedy when a NATO rocket incinerates children riding a
civilian bus. But they were only Serbs, and therefore subhuman in the
eyes of our true arbiters of right and wrong, the traditional media.
It's a tragedy when an inept and corrupt prosecutor with a history of
child abuse burns, suffocates, and crushes to death around twenty
children in a religious retreat outside Waco. But she and her boss,
the most luridly corrupt and fascist president in American history,
blamed the victims and -- in large part through a concerted government
effort to destroy all evidence as quickly as possible -- got away with
it. So that must not matter either. I mean, Katie Graham and Tom
Brokaw were cool with it; how can you kick?
The death of a child does matter. But does it necessitate turning all
our lives upside down and inside out? Does it mean placing ourselves,
men and women -- and yes, children -- utterly at the mercy of
predators, surrendering ourselves to the violent fancies of the
stronger or simply more numerous?
Bathtubs, medical misadventure, and cars all kill far more young
children than guns do. Do we ban baths, doctors, and cars? Does the
Washington Post editorialize, wondering what we want to be clean,
healthy, or mobile for?
If the whole country must be disrupted because one child dies, why
weren't the US Marshals disarmed if not disbanded when three of its
agents, in a cowardly, perverted act of child-murder, shot Sammy
Weaver in the back?
The District Attorney where the Michigan shooting occurred -- who will
not be named here, since such vampires batten on publicity -- blithely
announced that the child could not be held responsible by reason of
being a minor.
Why, by the way? The kid was competent to premeditate and execute
murder. What difference does his age make?
Since someone must be blamed -- and if you want to reap headlines, you
have a good idea whom, or what, that is -- the DA then proclaimed the
killing the fault of our "fully-armed society."
Laying aside that the implication we have a "fully-armed
society" is as ludicrously untrue as most prosecutorial utterances,
if the murderer is not accountable for murder, how in the hell do you
reckon that I am?
It's absurd. As a gun owner who has never shot any kids nor anybody
else I will not be held accountable for the action of another. No one
should be penalized for somebody else's misdeeds.
A child is dead not because there are guns, but because evildoers do
Even if they're only six.
Yes, a child died by gun -- a stolen gun. And let me ask those of you
who smugly desire that gunowners be held liable for any misuse of
guns stolen from them -- will you enjoy it when that legal precedent
is applied, as inevitably it will be, to your car?
By that standard the mother of the child recently dragged to death in
Missouri would be as guilty of the boy's murder as the carjacker.
Bill Clinton, himself a rapist, murderer, and war criminal, announced
that the tragedy could have been prevented by requiring safety locks
on guns. Sure, a criminal dad will be careful to put safety locks on
all his stolen guns before he heads off to jail.
Safety locks and "smart" guns can only encourage violent criminals,
since they amount to de facto disarmament of prospective
victims: their purpose is to kill gun owners.
If I'm wrong, Mr. Clinton, then surely you will lead the way by
requiring your Secret Service and Marine Presidential Detail guards
to install safety locks on all their weapons, and keep them locked
until such time as you are actually physically threatened.
I mean, safety locks do work. Who can doubt they would have
saved Amadou Diallo?
As I wrote after Columbine, the problem is not that we have too many
guns, but too few. We are not as fully armed a society as we should
be. The environment is still too rich with prey -- which very fact
calls predators into existence.
If we want our children to be safe, what sense does it make to send
them off to government indoctrination camps where the most
ludicrously Draconian "zero tolerance" measures inevitably fail to
protect them? It should be apparent to anyone with eyes and a brain
that in depriving our children of the means of self defense, we put
them at the mercy of bullies and gangs -- including school-sanctioned
athletes, who were largely above the law when I was a student in the
Sixties and Seventies, and manifestly remain so today.
We must remember: men don't need guns to rape or abuse women. Adults
don't need guns to kill kids. The strong don't need guns to kill the
weak, nor do the many against the lone or few. Guns, handguns in
particular, confer advantage primarily to the defense.
Perhaps we should ask why the Washington Post and the political class
whose interests it serves are so assiduously -- indeed explicit -- in
desiring we be stripped of the means of self-defense.
Reset: no "perhaps" about it. When guns are outlawed, the ones who
obey will be meat.
If you would be safe, learn to defend yourself. The most efficient
means of doing so is with guns. If you want your child to be safe,
home-school her and teach her well in gun safety -- any five year old
of normal intelligence can be quickly taught all she needs to know to
be safe around guns.
Doubt that? Do you have a stove? Did you manage to teach your child
not to go grabbing at the blue flame or the orange-glowing element?
Maybe not, because fire kills more kids than guns too.
And if you don't wish to do these things, don't send your hired thugs
to attempt to disarm those of us who do choose to act responsibly.
It interests me to see how this immorality play runs politically. In
the wake of the Columbine slaughter of the helpless the tsunami of
gun-grabbing laws the media and politicians called for...didn't
happen. The polls all said the American people overwhelmingly cried
out for gun control; they were of course made up or rigged, as
virtually all opinion polls are. But the politicians seem to have had
some means of testing what real Americans really thought, because in
a very bipartisan manner they dropped all the proposed repression as
if it glowed hot, mumbling attempts to blame one another.
What actually happened seems clear to me: they feared to face
insurrection, at the polls or in the streets, if they attempted to go
against the wishes of what is, if not already a majority, a huge
plurality of Americans who will not be disarmed.
In the only meaningful sense, Americans were already voting in the
wake of Columbine: buying a million guns a month. It wasn't
all Y2K hysteria, folks.
To the armed I say: stand fast. If you consent to be disarmed the
results will be worse than I suspect you remotely imagine.
To the disarmers I say: I can speak only for myself when I say that I
will not accept blame for an act, however atrocious, which I did not
commit and over which I had no control; and I will never consent to
being disarmed. But if you vultures are minded to go ahead and try,
you may be disagreeably surprised to learn just how many tens of
millions of Americans agree with me.
to advance to the next article, or
to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 68, March 31, 2000.