Gun Control: connecting the dots of crime to gun control to socialism.

April 7, 8:17 AMLA Gun Rights ExaminerJohn Longenecker

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the LA Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

But, maybe stopping crime is not the idea. Gun control is only one of the steps in moving a society more and more toward Socialism. Let’s look at a few dots to connect in our part of the world.

The real objective for most honest citizens is how to stop the active shooters who somehow get a gun no matter how prohibited they are. The answer is not in stopping the guns, then – you’ll never stop the guns for prohibited persons – but stopping the shooters, and you have to do it fast. This is a dot which should appear, but doesn’t. Put a question mark there for now.

Shooters cannot be stopped by profiling them in advance. The key is not to try and see them coming weeks ahead of time, and the key is not trying to figure them out after they’ve killed our kids; the key is to know them when they strike and to stop them then and there.

But how? By facing the obvious.

Most non-gun owners do not know that citizens are possessed of all legal authority to stop a crime in progress. The truth is that you and I have all the authority we need to stop a crime in progress. This makes non-gun owners and all anti-gun types perceive citizens as ‘running around with guns’. The fact is that we’re all walking around in authority in this country, and what we are all dealing with is the bureaucracy trying to take that authority away by way of more and more sacrifice. Soon, we won’t have any at all.

The Armed Citizen is in the public interest for many reasons, and disarming the citizen is against the public interest whatever the reason.

More than a right, lethal force in the hands of the electorate is more than the force backing our sovereign authority: it polices whole neighborhoods under our own authority, and is regarded by honest analysts as the first line of defense. Police, for instance, operate entirely on our authority, we do not operate on theirs. You don’t need permission to stop a crime in progress, especially if you’re the target. Crime affects millions every year, largely for lack of resistance. Lack of resistance is largely indoctrination not to resist, such as hiding the ball as to how one may legally and effectively respond to violence. "Give them what they want," "Don’t resist, you’ll hurt yourself," "A gun in the home only means trouble," "Be a good witness..." you get the idea. In a word, get used to surrendering, both practically and politically. Has disarming people of their knowledge and authority proven to be good advice? Or is it a trick to lead people to socialism?

Disarming citizens to create new fertile ground to grow more crime is the Hegelian formula. Marx put emphasis on disarming the people. Whole industries from makers of street cameras to security firms to RFID Tracking to National ID Card just thrive on crime. Gee, do you think there's already a connection there??

Prohibited persons, on the other hand — the ones doing all the killings where there are no guns allowed — are already breaking laws without fear of being stopped. See the set-up? Prohibited persons kill folks, but free and honest citizens are called to make sacrifice, a word you’re going to hear a lot more. It is an exquisite model of Hegel’s idea of governing over crisis, or go without work. Without crisis, that is, if citizens discovered how we can manage things better, government would be a lot smaller.

Citizens may immediately use up to lethal force when in the reasonable apprehension of grave danger, and we do so roughly 2.5 million times each year. That works well for Americans who understand that they do not have to make sacrifices for the buffoonery of their public servants.

But how does an armed citizenry prevent Tyranny? Is there an inevitable shoot-out with troops? Will there be a big showdown? No. There is simply the understanding that we no longer need to make sacrifices for the stupidity and sinister intentions of our public servants who ask us to go against our better judgment. I’ll discuss that more in Part II.

There will be no shoot-outs with our own troops. There will be only individual knocks at the doors of individual citizens for various offenses not even related to guns. By then, and soon, so many new laws will be written to include for confiscations of weapons as routine, that eventually we’ll all be guilty of something, from kicking the dog to refusing a vaccination to smoking to whatever car you drive. Most of the offenses will need to involve one’s asserting one’s rights in order to be breaking the law. Exercise your parental right to refuse a vaccine for your child, and you forfeit your handguns within the language of a new law.

It’s already underway for returning soldiers, and others. Some of our Gun Rights Examiners are thoroughly expert on these as they move through the process at this very hour.

You should have a few dots now: First a question mark on the extreme left standing for the concept conspicuous by its absence, the question of why there is no policy for actually stopping an active shooter, but policies discouraging resistance. Next is the dot of so much tolerance for crime, from selective enforcement to hiding the ball of genuine authority of the electorate. The next dot is blaming guns in mounting report after report of shootings, and the next is asking for sacrifice and more sacrifice from the electorate for the error and stupidity of public servants in issues not even related to guns.

Get your dots organized and line them up. More to come.

_____________________________________

John Longenecker is author of Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns. His e-mail is John-at-GoodForTheCountry.com and he welcomes all correspondence.