Have Gun, Will Travel
Few topics cause more confusion and emotionalism than the subject of guns. But before you speculate that
this pacifist author is against the second amendment, consider the nature of the real issue. Guns are simply an instrument
of function. The principle that is part of our heritage, is the inalienable ability for self defense. This natural right,
does not exist because government has passed a law or grants some privilege. Protecting your own life and safety is intrinsic
to your very existence. So why do so many people confuse gun ownership with self protection, when the former is only a means,
while the later is an immutable right?
Gun Control Supporter Misfires by W. James Antle III
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
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."
Charlton Heston May 1999 keynote speech
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