THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 414, April 22, 2007
That Stupid Git
The Law Failed
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
By now the news about the shootings at Virginia Tech have reached everyone. I hate hearing about things like this. I hate it not only because some probably good people were killed (I say probably because I didn't know any of them), but because those who hate us and our way of life will seek to use these events to further their political agendas. I can almost see Pelosi and Hillary snickering over their bubbling cauldrons at their "good fortune"
I wrote a piece a few months ago on how to prevent these things and it involves, simply and decidedly, that being armed is the best solution.
Point One: It is already illegal to do what the gunman did... murder people. . . but he did it anyway. . . sadly, the law failed.
Point Two: It is illegal to bring guns into the University, yet that didn't stop the gunman. He did it anyway. . . again, the law failed.
Point Three: As courageous as the University police may be. . . as trained and equipped as they may be. . . they are totally irrelevant in such events. As we saw, they did not stop this man. He killed a boatload of people unbothered by the enforcers of the law, the prosecutors of the law, and of course, unbothered by those who obey the law.
Again. . . The Law Failed.
There are only three conclusions we may reach here.
Conclusion One: These events are unavoidable and some people will simply die this way in the society we have. I personally refuse to accept that under any terms.
Conclusion Two: These event can be stopped by making it illegal for civilians to possess guns. The stupidity of this argument cannot be overstated, yet that is undoubtedly what we will hear. I will reference all to the points above. In short, as they all invariably do, The Law Failed.
Conclusion Three: Allow those who wish to, to carry guns for their own protection. (and I would add, make any organization that enacts policies to prevent the free exercise of civil rights, liable for any crimes of violence). I think of the three, this one makes the most sense, but probably the one least considered.
Some would say that an armed man or woman would only be able to protect themselves and would not have stopped the gunman. I disagree if in the act of this self-protection, they killed the gunman. What if the first or second intended victim had been one of these? How many lives would have been saved by one civilian carrying a pistol? After all. . . with all the cops in and around the college already, they could not prevent the shooter from killing again. The law failed here as well did it not?
On the shooter, few facts are coming out. This makes me wonder. First of all, I find it a very strange coincidence that every time some sort of anti-gun (anti-civil rights) legislation is being discussed, something like this happens. I'm not suggesting anything, but the contestants on Deal or No Deal should have as much "coincidental happenstance".
Regardless of where all of the fallout takes us, I expect a greater impetus in the left's attempts to deny our civil right to own and carry guns. I have just ordered a boatload of pistol and rifle magazines for sale at our store, and another two crates of ammo for our own armory.