THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 534, August 30, 2009
"Ding Dong the Drunk is dead!"
Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise
While the response to my previous articles elsewhere has been by majority positive, I appear to have ruffled a few feathers of those who have chosen to beg the state for permission to exercise their 2A rights. The central theme of their objections is they fear being arrested and going to jail if law enforcement personnel find them with a concealed weapon. While this is certainly a concern, I believe it fails to address the central issue.
All concealed carry permits have their limitations; the great majority ban concealed carry in schools. Now, let me see, have we ever had a school shooting in this country? Why are the only people permitted to have guns in school, police or criminals? Will anyone ever forget the scene of hundreds of law enforcement personnel standing outside the building at Columbine while students and teachers inside were being terrorized and killed by psychopaths?
Although police tactics for mass shootings changed after Columbine, at Virginia Tech, another madman with a chain and a lock on the doors of the killing zone, decreed the police impotent again. Students and teachers faced death unarmed, and therefore, unprotected. They died because they trusted the state to protect them.
All gun violence ends with a gun; when a firearm appears to stop the killing depends on who is armed and capable of ending the madness, or the whim of the killer. The arrival of the police at both Columbine and Virginia Tech mattered not at all in the overall death toll. So much for "To Serve and Protect." Always remember, when you need the police in seconds, they are only minutes away. Numerous mass shootings prove my point.
People do not understand that a right is not inalienable because it is written on a piece of parchment; a right is only inalienable when a free people claim it and by their actions demand it. Begging the state for permission transforms an inalienable right into a privilege, not only for the person doing the begging, but for all others as well. Those who place themselves as subservient to the state have no right to confer their status as servants on those who wish to remain free.
Equally absurd is the discussion of "open" or concealed carry. Is a weapon more dangerous because it cannot be seen? Does it shoot straighter or hold more rounds? Did Klebold, Harris and Seung-Hui Cho have their weapons concealed or visible before they shot their teachers and fellow students? Did they have trigger-locks they removed before killing their victims or perhaps detachable magazines? Did the weapons they used fit the term, "assault" weapons? Whether they fit the government's definition or not ceased to matter once the first shot was fired. When these madmen entered the respective schools, everyone inside became an unarmed, helpless target, thanks to the state!
We have allowed politicians and bureaucrats to cloud the issue with meaningless dialogue and definitions while the core issue remains unresolved: do individuals have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones, anytime and anywhere, without permission from those who render them helpless with illegal laws and restrictions?
Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp makes an ironclad case, not for concealed carry, but for unrestricted carry by a free society. Dr. Hupp was forced to watch helplessly as her father was shot as he charged the gunman unarmed. The gunman also shot her mother as she came to the aid of her father; all these deaths because criminals in our government decreed it unlawful for an honest citizen to carry a firearm into a restaurant. These laws did not stop the madman as he went about his heinous activity. The law did not matter that day, nor will it ever matter to the criminally deranged who commit such carnage.
This incredible lady confronts the criminals in their lair; she tells them straightforward the intent of the Second Amendment. How can anyone dishonor the courage of this brave American by begging the very criminals she nailed to the wall for permission to defend themselves?
Acquiescing to, or compromising with criminal government is analogous to being the victim of blackmail; the criminal/blackmailer demands more and more until it reaches the point the victim can no longer pay. The TARP bailouts, the Fed and Obamacare, not to mention decades of criminal laws and regulations, have brought us to that point in our history: we can no longer afford to pay the price of out-of-control government.
This Ponzi scheme called government will eventually collapse of its own weight. This will lead to chaos like that seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Those in government are aware of this and are currently doing all they can to fill their pockets and the pockets of their supporters before time expires on their criminal enterprise.
Americans are going to be forced from their comfort zones when this chaos occurs. Then they will rue the day they compromised their right to own and carry the necessary means to defend their lives and property.
The government does not avidly pursue gun control because they are concerned for the common citizen, they continue in this illegal agenda because they fear many more will awaken to the reality of what Dr. Hupp so fearlessly stated: "the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting...it is about all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there."