1/7

In an article, Gun Control Supporter Misfires, the accomplished author W. James Antle III nails the deceit of the ban the guns crowd. It is well established that facts have little significance to the proponents of 'PC', so why should we expect that gun statistics and history are anymore sacred? In essence the scholarship of Michael Bellesiles, in the book Arming America, raises significant questions. His conclusion casts doubts on individual rights in the Second Amendment. Contending that gun ownership, dating back to the beginning of the Republic, was less prevalent than commonly accepted, he intimates that citizens don't have a pure claim to own such weapons.

But as with most condemnation of private ownership of firearms, we never get an argument to refute the absolute principle, of self defense. Why? Because such an attack upon the right of the individual to protect and save their life would be deemed lunacy. So the assault must be targeted as the means and the ability to protect ourselves.

The fundamental right to defend your life is never conditional on the legal process. Governments can pass all their restrictive laws and impose any penalties they want, but none will negate your absolute right for self defense. The underlying reason for the systemic eradication of private gun ownership is that government fears their own citizens.

The State is an entity that results from the organization of society among varied interests, to rule the public. Your natural rights are never transferred to a non living creation of those who have achieved power over others. Citizens cannot negate their own rights, through a process of delegation and consent to any State. But what we have is a chronicle throughout all history of governments telling citizens that their rights are a result of government authority. If you accept this fraud, you can and mostly likely will, gladly accept the pronouncement of civic administration that restrict your ability to preserve your own existence.

Gun ownership is a sideshow to the real struggle. But guns represent a real threat to corrupt masters and their institutions. You already know the terminal consequences that happens to any population that surrenders the means to protect themselves. The record is clear - the society is at a greater risk to their own government, than domination from a foreign intruder.

The insight that few understand and even less accept, is that the individual right for self protection is quite different from the justification used by governments to fight war. In its most unadulterated essence, a government does not have a 'natural right' to exist. Since it is not an endowed being, but only a device designed by architects of social order, it exists by and through the use of power. Is it any wonder that the protectors of government fear their own people? They know, all too well, that their privileged status is contrived and arbitrary. So what you get from loyalists to the State, is an orchestrated effort to deceive their neighbors into relinquishing their birth rights.

One needs not to be an NRA member to agree with Charlton Heston when he said in the May 1999 keynote speech: "The individual right to bear arms is freedom's insurance policy. Not just for your children, but for infinite generations to come. That is it's singular sacred duty, and why we preserve it so fiercely."

The point is self evident. You use a right or you lose it . . . And when the very government that exists to serve and protect its citizens, reduces them to servants of the State; how can any sane person doubt the wisdom, that they are marked for further grievances? The only other cogent reason you need to justify the means to protect you and your loved ones, is to accept your right to defend against a government gone terminally amuck. One should not misread into this conclusion that advocacy for armed rebellion is supported. Remember, this author promotes non violent civil disobedience. But for those who are not so inclined to voluntary restrict other options, the case for self determination is morally valid.

As Mr Antle points out, John Lott author of: More Guns, Less Crime; was savaged in the media for daring to support his conclusions for private gun ownership, with impeccable research. Let's not confuse the public with salient arguments and factual evidence. The government will protect you! Well, even if we could accept their assurance when it comes to the common version of criminals, who will protect us from the State?

"A knight without armor in a savage land" . . . Will you be your own Paladin, or will you succumb to the fate of millions who allowed their leaders to disarm them? Since many consider that Mohandas Gandhi's approach is as foreign as the land where he lived, recall that Paladin was also a cultured man who safeguarded the oppressed. He charged a flat fee, but was willing to perform charity services for a good cause. What is your excuse for not defending yourself? Waiting for the generosity of a modern day knight, might just be too late. Or are you willing to adopt the role of "Hey Boy", and do the cooking and the servant work for your master? Most now, aspire to little more.

SARTRE - January 7, 2002