"Do not punish the masses for the sins of the few"
This applies to any and all rights and privileges stated in the Constitution of the United States
For example “The Right to Bear and Keep Arms”. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Nowhere does the Constitution give the President or the Congress the power to federalize state crimes or enact gun control legislation -- not even in a national emergency. One reads the Constitution in vain for such a delegation of authority by "We, the People" through the several states. Very instructive on this point are the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were written by Thomas Jefferson.
The federal government in 1798 enacted a law making it illegal to criticize a federal official (the Sedition Act). These are among the arguments that Jefferson made in the
...whensoever’s the general government assumes un-delegated powers, its acts are un-authoritative, void, and of no force: ...that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself;...each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish crime delegated to the federal government were 1) treason, 2) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, 3) piracies and 4) offenses against the law of nations. In this context,
Anyone who has observed children will recognize that, ironically, they often demonstrate a more stringent and uncompromising sense of justice than the adults around them. A small child who must divide a piece of cake, for example, will be excruciatingly precise in cutting it lest the "chooser" glom on to a larger slice. Whether the issue is whose turn it is to clear the dishes, take out the trash, or who broke that lamp, young people appeal to an almost innate sense of propriety in demanding they be treated fairly and equitably.
This tendency to rigor is perhaps even more evident when parents must mete out punishments and rewards. To be falsely penalized for something they did not do will stir up the loudest and shrillest of complaints among the innocent offspring.
Too many adults, unfortunately, mildly, meekly, and silently accept such collectivist justice when dealing with social and political issues.
The essence of a moral view of justice entails a recognition that only individuals can be held accountable for the right and wrong they do. Because each of us possesses free will and, thus, the capacity to make choices among alternatives, when we act upon our best (or sometimes worst) judgment, we and we alone are who should reap the benefits of selecting wisely and appropriately...and we and we alone should be the ones to suffer the negative consequences of picking hastily, foolishly, or ignorantly.
If good and evil are to mean anything, our moral autonomy as beings with the capacity for rational behavior must be acknowledged and accepted. Any other basis for determining who is responsible for destructive or constructive outcomes leads to the kind of schizophrenic legal and political realm nipping at our heels today.
This individualistic conception of justice did not always hold sway. Indeed, collectivistic guilt has a long history. In Christian theology, we are all guilty of sin because of the behavior of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Throughout the past, whole families -- sometimes entire cities -- were held responsible for what fathers or kings might have done. The average citizen of ancient Carthage Rome
Our Founding Fathers recognized the inherent injustice in accepting the doctrine of collective guilt, i.e., visiting unto the sons the sins of the father. Article III of the Constitution says that "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood." In other words, the family of a traitor cannot be punished simply because the members are related to the perpetrator.
The bulk of the legal code under which we labor today, however, is rife with violations of this principle. The general collectivization of our culture in the Twentieth Century permeates every crack and crevice of our relationship with the law. Incoherently, our politicians hold individual citizens blameless for many of the negative conditions in their lives (e.g., being poor, homeless, addicted to drugs, sexual promiscuous, or abysmally ignorant) while pointing a narrow finger at us all. "Society" does not provide enough resources (i.e., money) or understanding or opportunities.
But "society" is only an abstraction, a way of describing the relationships, the actions, the beliefs of individuals. Despite what every dictator or tyrant or statist has proclaimed, society as a separate entity does not literally exist apart from and above the separate and distinct individuals who comprise it. Just as the ideas of "right" and "left" have no meaning when divorced from the people involved, so too, "society" loses its coherence when reified (and too often, deified).
In addition to supplying a (poor) rationale for the plethora of social programs dragging us down -- from Social Security and Medicare to business subsidies and disaster relief -- the notion of collective responsibility, obligation, or guilt obliterates proper understanding and application of justice and equity by punishing the innocent majority for the transgressions of the criminal few.
Most regulations, laws, and prohibitions are propounded by pointing out that certain abuses have occurred in the past. Thus, because certain people have engaged in improper behavior, everyone must be presumed to be a potential criminal and have his choices and actions inspected, constrained, or curtailed. Such legal machinations act as a kind of prior restraint. They sanction the notion that the agents of the government must, in essence, punish citizens -- for potential improprieties -- beforehand by means of dictates, fees, or restrictions on what they do and/or how they do it.
But an implicit assumption of guilt -- before you have even acted -- violates the constitutionally recognized principle that you can only be punished after you have actually done something wrong. Even then, the legal system must assume the innocence of the accused. The courts must prove you are guilty. To make you prove you are innocent -- as most regulations on business and individuals do -- is rank injustice. To add insult to the injury, many of the laws strangling us today are based on some group's notion of morality regardless of whether or not you have actually violated anyone's rights (for example, with consensual "crimes" such as prostitution, drug use, and gambling).
Affirmative action policies punish those who were never racist for the sins of those long dead, an indirect "corruption of blood." Business regulations assume that only state scrutiny prevents all entrepreneurs from being polluters, swindlers, and cheaters. Sexual harassment and anti-discrimination laws (whether for sex, race, ethnic background, age, or disability) squeeze us all into narrow-minded compartments of barely suppressed bigotry held in check only by the good graces of the bureaucrats.
Tens of thousands of gun (i.e., people) control laws treat peaceful, rights-respecting individuals as criminals held at bay only because they must jump through arbitrary, unconstitutional hoops that disarm and endanger millions while leaving the field unchallenged to the rapists, robbers, and burglars.
The "rule of law" has morphed into the "rule of men." Politicians, regulators, and law enforcement agents see us today as blank, faceless, and interchangeable segments of whatever particular group they have focused upon. No longer are we treated as distinct individuals. Instead we are lumped together, punished for no sin of our own, treated not as innocent individuals, but as untrustworthy villains-by-proxy.The Constitution has been turned on its head. Instead of the individual at the pinnacle of the pyramid, today he is crushed by the weight of the masses who take precedence in their anonymity over his unique and individual life and personality. Instead of the individual being able to do anything not prohibited and the state only that which is permitted, in modern society, the abstract (and literally nonexistent) state has virtually carte blanche to chase after every whim. The true, fundamental component of our culture -- a single, real, breathing person -- is bound and chained, able to choose only from a narrower and narrower range of what is allowed him as a privilege, not a right.
As mentioned, the very notion of "rights" has itself been both bloated and choked. On the one hand, "rights" to health care, housing, food, education and on and on are manufactured out of thin air. On the other hand, property rights -- the foundation for implementing the right to your own existence -- is suppressed by the rampant moral inflation of bogus rights. Coupled with both malign neglect and direct attacks upon property, we drift without legal anchor or direction.
To restore freedom, we must reclaim the moral initiative. We must re-consecrate respect for justice as a trait of the individual, not the collective. We must hold as sacrosanct our right to earn and hold property, to direct its use, and to wield it as a shield against malefactors. We must proclaim our right as free, autonomous, and sovereign individuals to do what we want, say what we will, and build our lives without the permission, sanction, or approval of any group. As long as we respect the same rights of all others, we should and must never be punished for the transgressions of the few.
Compiled by: Yj Draiman
this blog is very informative for me....its a great work from ur side....thanks and congrats...
ReplyDeleteAir Quality Testing
Compressed Air in Pakistan
Air Audit services
Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens
ReplyDeleteWilliam A. Levinson. Permission is granted to print, copy, and distribute hard (non-electronic) copies of this page freely and without royalties of any kind, provided that it is not altered in any manner.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society. The common perception is that armed societies were polite because an act of rudeness might evolve into a duel, as portrayed in Dumas' The Three Musketeers. The real reason, though, is the mindset and psychology that come with responsible weapon ownership. The knight's sword was a symbol of his duty to protect weaker members of society and behave chivalrously, e.g. with respect and courtesy to women, elderly people, and so on. The sword was the soul of the Japanese samurai, a constant reminder of the samurai's duty and code of behavior. The sword was a symbol of taking responsibility, not only for one's self, but usually for others.
If you don't like cops (or armed citizens), the next time you're in danger-- call a hippie! (Or a Million Mom Marcher)
The modern American who buys a firearm for self-protection is saying, "I recognize that life involves danger, and by owning a weapon I accept my responsibility to protect myself and those who are entitled to my protection-- my wife/husband, children, parents, and perhaps friends and neighbors." An American who shoots at targets for recreation is practicing a form of self-discipline similar to kyudo (Japanese archery). If you are attacked by a criminal, it is the person with the armed-citizen mindset who is more likely to call the police. If you're in a car accident, this is the person who is more likely to stop and give first aid if possible, or else call an ambulance for you. The antigun activist is likely to look the other way, like the New Yorkers did when Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death. They didn't want to get involved, not even to the extent of picking up a telephone. More recently, a cab driver was attacked and robbed in the presence of dozens of New Yorkers, of whom not one called the police. You could probably bleed to death on a New York sidewalk while dozens of people walked past; these are the same people who parade in the Million Mom March and elect mayors and governors who enact handgun bans.
Many antigun activists are saying, "I do not want to recognize that life involves danger. I deserve to live in a protected environment, and I should not have to think about protecting myself, my spouse, my parents, my children, or my neighbors. This is the 21st century, and violence simply should not happen." It's the same mindset that went with the "ban the Bomb" movements of the 1970s and 1980s; they wanted to legislate the Bomb out of existence and pretend that nuclear war couldn't (and can't) happen. The mice voted to put a bell on the cat so they'd be safe. It all goes with dodging and avoiding responsibility, and the moral (and often physical) cowardice that goes with this mindset. Placing responsibility for violence on the inanimate object (the gun or the Bomb) instead of on people goes with it.
ReplyDeleteConsider Rosie O'Donnell, who has a bodyguard to protect her and her family. Maybe she wants to delegate the physical risks to an employee, or maybe she doesn't want to endanger her nail polish with a steel trigger guard. Ted Kennedy has, or had, an armed bodyguard. I'm sure this rich man's rich boy who never did a lick of honest work in his entire worthless life would not want to touch anything made of steel, whether it be a household tool or a weapon; that is what servants are for. Chinese mandarins grew their fingernails long as proof that they did not have to fight or do any work; that is probably why there are no mandarins today. Here's the problem with all those bodyguards and rent-a-cops that are so popular with our "beautiful people"/ celebrity/ limousine liberal aristocrat class. Machiavelli's The Prince says that you cannot pay a man enough to make him willing to die for you. That security person is not going to put his life in serious danger to protect you, your spouse, or your child-- and if you're unwilling to do that, why should he?
Why the pro-Second Amendment side will win: Xenophon
Heinlein also defined a gentleman as one who would rather be a dead lion than a live louse (or rabbit). It is really easier, though, to be a live lion than a live rabbit. Xenophon's The Persian Expedition says, "...the people whose one aim is to keep alive usually find a wretched and dishonorable death, while the people who, realizing that death is the common lot of all men, make it their endeavor to die with honor, somehow seem more often to reach old age and to have a happier life when they are alive." So it is with antigun activists and gun rights supporters. The former seek safety in ineffective laws and "this is how the world ought to be," and they find no safety; the latter look to themselves for security, and they are secure. Xenophon's Ten Thousand heeded his advice and most came safely home to Greece. Ronald Reagan and George Bush won the Cold War, not by trying to ban the Bomb, but by looking it in the face.. We, the supporters of the Second Amendment, are Xenophon's disciples, and that is why we will win; the lions will beat the rabbits every time.
Many antigun activists are saying, "I do not want to recognize that life involves danger. I deserve to live in a protected environment, and I should not have to think about protecting myself, my spouse, my parents, my children, or my neighbors. This is the 21st century, and violence simply should not happen." It's the same mindset that went with the "ban the Bomb" movements of the 1970s and 1980s; they wanted to legislate the Bomb out of existence and pretend that nuclear war couldn't (and can't) happen. The mice voted to put a bell on the cat so they'd be safe. It all goes with dodging and avoiding responsibility, and the moral (and often physical) cowardice that goes with this mindset. Placing responsibility for violence on the inanimate object (the gun or the Bomb) instead of on people goes with it.
ReplyDeleteConsider Rosie O'Donnell, who has a bodyguard to protect her and her family. Maybe she wants to delegate the physical risks to an employee, or maybe she doesn't want to endanger her nail polish with a steel trigger guard. Ted Kennedy has, or had, an armed bodyguard. I'm sure this rich man's rich boy who never did a lick of honest work in his entire worthless life would not want to touch anything made of steel, whether it be a household tool or a weapon; that is what servants are for. Chinese mandarins grew their fingernails long as proof that they did not have to fight or do any work; that is probably why there are no mandarins today. Here's the problem with all those bodyguards and rent-a-cops that are so popular with our "beautiful people"/ celebrity/ limousine liberal aristocrat class. Machiavelli's The Prince says that you cannot pay a man enough to make him willing to die for you. That security person is not going to put his life in serious danger to protect you, your spouse, or your child-- and if you're unwilling to do that, why should he?
Why the pro-Second Amendment side will win: Xenophon
Heinlein also defined a gentleman as one who would rather be a dead lion than a live louse (or rabbit). It is really easier, though, to be a live lion than a live rabbit. Xenophon's The Persian Expedition says, "...the people whose one aim is to keep alive usually find a wretched and dishonorable death, while the people who, realizing that death is the common lot of all men, make it their endeavor to die with honor, somehow seem more often to reach old age and to have a happier life when they are alive." So it is with antigun activists and gun rights supporters. The former seek safety in ineffective laws and "this is how the world ought to be," and they find no safety; the latter look to themselves for security, and they are secure. Xenophon's Ten Thousand heeded his advice and most came safely home to Greece. Ronald Reagan and George Bush won the Cold War, not by trying to ban the Bomb, but by looking it in the face.. We, the supporters of the Second Amendment, are Xenophon's disciples, and that is why we will win; the lions will beat the rabbits every time.
Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens
ReplyDeleteWilliam A. Levinson. Permission is granted to print, copy, and distribute hard (non-electronic) copies of this page freely and without royalties of any kind, provided that it is not altered in any manner.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society. The common perception is that armed societies were polite because an act of rudeness might evolve into a duel, as portrayed in Dumas' The Three Musketeers. The real reason, though, is the mindset and psychology that come with responsible weapon ownership. The knight's sword was a symbol of his duty to protect weaker members of society and behave chivalrously, e.g. with respect and courtesy to women, elderly people, and so on. The sword was the soul of the Japanese samurai, a constant reminder of the samurai's duty and code of behavior. The sword was a symbol of taking responsibility, not only for one's self, but usually for others.
If you don't like cops (or armed citizens), the next time you're in danger-- call a hippie! (Or a Million Mom Marcher)
The modern American who buys a firearm for self-protection is saying, "I recognize that life involves danger, and by owning a weapon I accept my responsibility to protect myself and those who are entitled to my protection-- my wife/husband, children, parents, and perhaps friends and neighbors." An American who shoots at targets for recreation is practicing a form of self-discipline similar to kyudo (Japanese archery). If you are attacked by a criminal, it is the person with the armed-citizen mindset who is more likely to call the police. If you're in a car accident, this is the person who is more likely to stop and give first aid if possible, or else call an ambulance for you. The antigun activist is likely to look the other way, like the New Yorkers did when Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death. They didn't want to get involved, not even to the extent of picking up a telephone. More recently, a cab driver was attacked and robbed in the presence of dozens of New Yorkers, of whom not one called the police. You could probably bleed to death on a New York sidewalk while dozens of people walked past; these are the same people who parade in the Million Mom March and elect mayors and governors who enact handgun bans.
Group Punishment
ReplyDeleteChild punishmentIf you have siblings, you remember the drill very well. Your mother comes in and says, “Who knocked over the lamp in the living room?” Of course, nobody knows. She looks around at the children, and each of them is playing dumb. Since she cannot determine whom to blame, she announces the punishment, “Then none of you will get dessert for the rest of the week.”
Group punishments for the sins of a single individual are more common than we think. It happens in the military on a daily basis. If nobody owns up to a misdeed, the entire platoon is penalized with the same punishment as the single guilty soldier would have received. The logic is that one person really is guilty, and the remaining people are guilty of covering up for him, so everyone suffers equally. The leverage is that it puts peer pressure on the guilty person to fess up. In some cases the ploy works, but in others the group solidarity is strong. In the end, the group will find other ways to punish the guilty individual that are not always obvious.
In our society, government has a similar tendency to punish the masses for the sins of the few. It has led to numerous infringements on privacy, like red light cameras, the TSA ordeal we all undergo when trying to get on a plane, gun control, and countless other well-meaning laws and policies that are meant to save the many from the excesses of the few.
Here is another example of the government punishing everyone for the sins of a few. Every publicly-owned company has been forced to spend large sums of money in order to comply with the Sarbanes Oxley Act. This extra cost is a direct result of some high profile unethical corporate abuses by a few corporations over a decade ago. All publicly-owned companies suffer for the prior sins of a few defective organizations and their leaders. This suffering is a lot more than meets the eye, because organizations outside the USA are not saddled with a Sarbanes Oxley Act, and have a competitive cost advantage.
You can see the same pattern in organizations. The boss notices that an individual is leaving work early a couple times a week, so he issues a reminder of hours of work for the whole organization. This leads one cynical employee to blow a bugle at quitting time to let people know when it is time to go home.
It is natural to want to fix the problem when trust has been broken, but we need to ask what price we pay when so many aspects of daily life are regimented and people are forced to pay for the mistakes of others. Does it make people want to be less accountable for their own actions? Does it demotivate them by stifling creative instincts? Does it discourage them from taking risks? Is it fair?
I think of what the world would be like if we did not have a tendency to punish the many for the sins of a few. What would happen if we encouraged personal responsibility and building trust and transparency by reinforcing candor. It would be a different place for sure. When you ask your children who broke the lamp in the other room, one of them would say, “I did, Mommy, and I am sorry.” It would be a kinder, gentler world with far fewer dumb rules we have to follow because a few unscrupulous people cannot be trusted to do the right things.
On one hand, since the mid 1970s, fewer households each year on average have had a gun. Gun control advocates should be cheered by that news, but it is eclipsed by a flurry of contrary developments. As has been well publicized, gun sales have steadily risen over the past few years, and spiked with each of Obama’s election victories.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, of the weapons that proliferate amongst the armed public, an increasing number are high caliber weapons (the weapon of choice in the goriest shootings in recent years). Then there is the legal landscape, which looks bleak for the gun control crowd.
Every state except for Illinois has a law allowing the carrying of concealed weapons — and just last week, a federal court struck down Illinois’ ban. States are now lining up to allow guns on college campuses. In September, Colorado joined four other states in such a move, and statehouses across the country are preparing similar legislation. And of course, there was Oklahoma’s ominous Open Carry Law approved by voters this election day — the fifteenth of its kind, in fact — which, as the name suggests, allows those with a special permit to carry weapons in the open, with a holster on their hip.
Individual gun ownership — and gun violence — has long been a distinctive feature of American society, setting us apart from the other industrialized democracies of the world. Recent legislative developments, however, are progressively bringing guns out of the private domain, with the ultimate aim of enshrining them in public life. Indeed, the N.R.A. strives for a day when the open carry of powerful weapons might be normal, a fixture even, of any visit to the coffee shop or grocery store — or classroom.
As N.R.A. president Wayne LaPierre expressed in a recent statement on the organization’s Web site, more guns equal more safety, by their account. A favorite gun rights saying is “an armed society is a polite society.” If we allow ever more people to be armed, at any time, in any place, this will provide a powerful deterrent to potential criminals.
"Labeling a public place a 'gun-free zone' will not create a non-violent environment for citizens; in fact, it does the opposite. By creating this illusion, we, as a country, are putting targets on the backs of our children, our families and our selves. While the President has already used this tragedy to feed his anti-gun agenda by saying that these killings have become 'routine', what he fails to mention is the truly routine pattern of these terrible crimes is that they happen in gun-free zones. Places where people have been rendered defenseless by the government.”
ReplyDeleteEver hear of the Second Amendment? I can think of no reason for not carrying guns openly. In fact, there are only seven states and the District of Columbia that continue to infringe on the Second Amendment by not allowing open carry. Fourteen states allow open carry with a license along with 29 states that allow unlicensed open carry, including four states—Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, and Wyoming—which require no permits for carrying openly or concealed. If open carry were a big problem, wouldn't some of these states repeal these laws instead of trending toward open carry in more states?
ReplyDelete[See the latest political cartoons.]
I carry openly daily here in Georgia. It is my strongly held belief that carrying a gun carried openly is a deterrent to crime. In fact, Georgia has a documented incident where two members of GeorgiaCarry.Orgwere openly carrying their firearms late at night in a Waffle House. They and the waitress were the only persons in the Waffle House when a man walked in, walked the length of the restaurant and left.
When our members left, there were several police cars outside with their blue lights on. The man who walked in was a "scout", noticed our members carrying openly, and left. He told the others in the car there were two guys with guns inside. The others, who were wearing ski masks, decided to wait for our members to leave in order to rob the Waffle House without resistance. Police on patrol noticed the suspicious actions and arrested them.
[Read America's Gun Culture and Its Effect on the 2012 Election.]
It is much more comfortable for me to carry in a holster outside my waistband for quick access than to try to hide my gun from others. Hiding or concealing a firearm only adds to my discomfort and to the time required to mount a proper defense if and when necessary.
If a person carries openly and responsibly, citizen reaction is extremely low. If the carrier does not draw attention to the weapon, many will not notice he is carrying. If seen, most will not give it a second thought or ask questions, giving time for an educational moment. And, it is amazing how friendly people are when standing next to an obviously armed person. An armed society is truly a polite society.
However, the most important reason for carrying openly is that a right not exercised is a right lost. I do not wish to lose any more of my rights.
Ever hear of the Second Amendment? I can think of no reason for not carrying guns openly. In fact, there are only seven states and the District of Columbia that continue to infringe on the Second Amendment by not allowing open carry. Fourteen states allow open carry with a license along with 29 states that allow unlicensed open carry, including four states—Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, and Wyoming—which require no permits for carrying openly or concealed. If open carry were a big problem, wouldn't some of these states repeal these laws instead of trending toward open carry in more states?
ReplyDelete[See the latest political cartoons.]
I carry openly daily here in Georgia. It is my strongly held belief that carrying a gun carried openly is a deterrent to crime. In fact, Georgia has a documented incident where two members of GeorgiaCarry.Orgwere openly carrying their firearms late at night in a Waffle House. They and the waitress were the only persons in the Waffle House when a man walked in, walked the length of the restaurant and left.
When our members left, there were several police cars outside with their blue lights on. The man who walked in was a "scout", noticed our members carrying openly, and left. He told the others in the car there were two guys with guns inside. The others, who were wearing ski masks, decided to wait for our members to leave in order to rob the Waffle House without resistance. Police on patrol noticed the suspicious actions and arrested them.
[Read America's Gun Culture and Its Effect on the 2012 Election.]
It is much more comfortable for me to carry in a holster outside my waistband for quick access than to try to hide my gun from others. Hiding or concealing a firearm only adds to my discomfort and to the time required to mount a proper defense if and when necessary.
If a person carries openly and responsibly, citizen reaction is extremely low. If the carrier does not draw attention to the weapon, many will not notice he is carrying. If seen, most will not give it a second thought or ask questions, giving time for an educational moment. And, it is amazing how friendly people are when standing next to an obviously armed person. An armed society is truly a polite society.
However, the most important reason for carrying openly is that a right not exercised is a right lost. I do not wish to lose any more of my rights.
The terrorist attack carried out at the Paris, France headquarters of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper offer proof of a fundamental mantra: “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are largely illegal inside France; certainly, the AK-47 style weapons used to gun down reporters and police officers can’t be bought over the counter. Yet, the two Islamic terrorists had no problem getting their hands on these weapons, and since no one (not even the police officer they murdered) had guns of their own, they were able to murder their way around France at will until they were finally brought down in a blaze of gunfire.
ReplyDeleteBy now many will have seen the video of two of the terrorists emerging from their vehicle, in brought daylight on a Paris street, to gun down a hapless (and apparently unarmed) police officer. The murder was filmed by a bystander from his upstairs apartment. How much different would the situation have been if, instead of holding his smart phone and recording the event, the bystander pulled out his own gun and ended it altogether? It wouldn’t even have to be an AK-47 like the one shown in this picture. A hunting rifle, or even a handgun, in the hands of someone trained and WILLING to use it, could have saved lives.
So what is the solution? The reaction to an earlier attack carried out by Islamic terrorists in a different country might be instructive. In the wake of yet another Islamic terrorist attack in Nigeria in October 2013, the Secretary General of Interpol advised that the solution to preventing such attacks in the future might include allowing responsible citizens to arm themselves. “Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem. One way is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security,” he said. How is it that Interpol, the European police organization, got this particular issue so right when so many in the US get it dead wrong?
A foundational principle of our country was self-reliance, illustrated by the specific right to protect life, liberty, and property and the right to keep and bear arms. One of the corollaries to that right is the responsibility of armed citizens to be called for militia duty – which also makes that gun owner operator responsible to maintain proficiency and safety with those owned weapons. Over the years, however, our national tradition of ruggedness and self-help has devolved to the point that we have become a nanny state where many citizens feel it is somebody else’s responsibility to protect them and seek to keep guns out of the hands of everybody but those now charged with their protection. The problems with this line of reasoning are many, but among them is the fact that our national security apparatus can’t be everywhere all the time… at least not in a way in which our country would still look like the Land of the Free.
Moreover, many people simply do not realize that the organization that most citizens believe is responsible for their security, the police force, does not even have a legal requirement to come to a citizen’s aid even when there is a problem. The false safety of the unarmed populace “protected” by heavily-armed police is exacerbated in areas like NYC and the Greater Chicago area, “Gun Free” zones that have more shootings than cities and towns where a higher proportion of law abiding citizens are armed with legally obtained and owned guns. This paradox, which amounts to “polite society” in which the people are presumed to be armed, parallels Robert Heinlein’s oft-quoted mantra, “an armed Society is a polite society.” This is because in a society where all responsible citizens can and do carry firearms, potential malefactors do not know who has the ability to meet with equal yet opposite force. This has a definitive deterrent effect, and when deterrence fails, armed responsible citizens can protect themselves and others.
The average citizens’ willingness to outsource personal security comes at the same time that armed violence is on the increase in the US and in much of the rest of the world. Several recent high profile attacks, such as the Fort Hood and Washington Naval Yard murders, and now the Charlie Hebdo incident, show two things clearly: 1) it’s too easy for people who shouldn’t have guns to get them; and 2) it’s too hard for people who should have them, to legally be able to carry firearms in places they might need them.
ReplyDeleteMany law-abiding citizens do carry firearms for self-defense, and many others would if they were permitted by law. But the US is a confusing patchwork of gun laws, with rules differing radically from state to state, and in the case of New York, even within a state itself. Instead of helping to curb violent crime, these types of laws merely ensure that the people one would want to have firearms “should the need arise,” are utterly disarmed in the face of people who couldn’t care less about our laws or our lives.
The Fort Hood shooting is a case in point. 13 US service members were gunned down by one of their own, a self-radicalized Islamist who chose to ignore the prohibition against carrying a firearm on a military base, and blazed away at his comrades who followed the rules and allowed themselves to be disarmed. In this situation, and in many others, the very people who are charged with protecting vital American interests overseas though the use of firearms, cannot be trusted to carry civilian weapons to protect their own life, liberty, and property within the borders of their own county. It has been this way for so long, that most Americans don’t give the hypocrisy of this condition a second thought.
We, as a nation, need to change. The Secretary General of Interpol recognizes this, why can’t we? After implementing an effective training, mental health, and background check program, eliminate the “no guns on post” rule and allow service members to carry concealed handguns anywhere such weapons are permitted, regardless of state or local ordnances. Create a national licensing system of universal reciprocity for gun permits, exactly like there is universal reciprocity for drivers licenses. As the Secretary General of Interpol states, and as many US citizens believe, a solution to the kinds of mass violence that we’re seeing in today’s world is MORE guns in the right hands, not fewer.
The nations of Western Europe have much to learn from incidents like the Charlie Hebdo massacre. And so do we.
The average citizens’ willingness to outsource personal security comes at the same time that armed violence is on the increase in the US and in much of the rest of the world. Several recent high profile attacks, such as the Fort Hood and Washington Naval Yard murders, and now the Charlie Hebdo incident, show two things clearly: 1) it’s too easy for people who shouldn’t have guns to get them; and 2) it’s too hard for people who should have them, to legally be able to carry firearms in places they might need them.
ReplyDeleteMany law-abiding citizens do carry firearms for self-defense, and many others would if they were permitted by law. But the US is a confusing patchwork of gun laws, with rules differing radically from state to state, and in the case of New York, even within a state itself. Instead of helping to curb violent crime, these types of laws merely ensure that the people one would want to have firearms “should the need arise,” are utterly disarmed in the face of people who couldn’t care less about our laws or our lives.
The Fort Hood shooting is a case in point. 13 US service members were gunned down by one of their own, a self-radicalized Islamist who chose to ignore the prohibition against carrying a firearm on a military base, and blazed away at his comrades who followed the rules and allowed themselves to be disarmed. In this situation, and in many others, the very people who are charged with protecting vital American interests overseas though the use of firearms, cannot be trusted to carry civilian weapons to protect their own life, liberty, and property within the borders of their own county. It has been this way for so long, that most Americans don’t give the hypocrisy of this condition a second thought.
We, as a nation, need to change. The Secretary General of Interpol recognizes this, why can’t we? After implementing an effective training, mental health, and background check program, eliminate the “no guns on post” rule and allow service members to carry concealed handguns anywhere such weapons are permitted, regardless of state or local ordnances. Create a national licensing system of universal reciprocity for gun permits, exactly like there is universal reciprocity for drivers licenses. As the Secretary General of Interpol states, and as many US citizens believe, a solution to the kinds of mass violence that we’re seeing in today’s world is MORE guns in the right hands, not fewer.
The nations of Western Europe have much to learn from incidents like the Charlie Hebdo massacre. And so do we.
The terrorist attack carried out at the Paris, France headquarters of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper offer proof of a fundamental mantra: “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are largely illegal inside France; certainly, the AK-47 style weapons used to gun down reporters and police officers can’t be bought over the counter. Yet, the two Islamic terrorists had no problem getting their hands on these weapons, and since no one (not even the police officer they murdered) had guns of their own, they were able to murder their way around France at will until they were finally brought down in a blaze of gunfire.
ReplyDeleteBy now many will have seen the video of two of the terrorists emerging from their vehicle, in brought daylight on a Paris street, to gun down a hapless (and apparently unarmed) police officer. The murder was filmed by a bystander from his upstairs apartment. How much different would the situation have been if, instead of holding his smart phone and recording the event, the bystander pulled out his own gun and ended it altogether? It wouldn’t even have to be an AK-47 like the one shown in this picture. A hunting rifle, or even a handgun, in the hands of someone trained and WILLING to use it, could have saved lives.
So what is the solution? The reaction to an earlier attack carried out by Islamic terrorists in a different country might be instructive. In the wake of yet another Islamic terrorist attack in Nigeria in October 2013, the Secretary General of Interpol advised that the solution to preventing such attacks in the future might include allowing responsible citizens to arm themselves. “Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem. One way is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security,” he said. How is it that Interpol, the European police organization, got this particular issue so right when so many in the US get it dead wrong?
A foundational principle of our country was self-reliance, illustrated by the specific right to protect life, liberty, and property and the right to keep and bear arms. One of the corollaries to that right is the responsibility of armed citizens to be called for militia duty – which also makes that gun owner operator responsible to maintain proficiency and safety with those owned weapons. Over the years, however, our national tradition of ruggedness and self-help has devolved to the point that we have become a nanny state where many citizens feel it is somebody else’s responsibility to protect them and seek to keep guns out of the hands of everybody but those now charged with their protection. The problems with this line of reasoning are many, but among them is the fact that our national security apparatus can’t be everywhere all the time… at least not in a way in which our country would still look like the Land of the Free.
Moreover, many people simply do not realize that the organization that most citizens believe is responsible for their security, the police force, does not even have a legal requirement to come to a citizen’s aid even when there is a problem. The false safety of the unarmed populace “protected” by heavily-armed police is exacerbated in areas like NYC and the Greater Chicago area, “Gun Free” zones that have more shootings than cities and towns where a higher proportion of law abiding citizens are armed with legally obtained and owned guns. This paradox, which amounts to “polite society” in which the people are presumed to be armed, parallels Robert Heinlein’s oft-quoted mantra, “an armed Society is a polite society.” This is because in a society where all responsible citizens can and do carry firearms, potential malefactors do not know who has the ability to meet with equal yet opposite force. This has a definitive deterrent effect, and when deterrence fails, armed responsible citizens can protect themselves and others.
"Labeling a public place a 'gun-free zone' will not create a non-violent environment for citizens; in fact, it does the opposite. By creating this illusion, we, as a country, are putting targets on the backs of our children, our families and our selves. While the President has already used this tragedy to feed his anti-gun agenda by saying that these killings have become 'routine', what he fails to mention is the truly routine pattern of these terrible crimes is that they happen in gun-free zones. Places where people have been rendered defenseless by the government.”
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, since the mid 1970s, fewer households each year on average have had a gun. Gun control advocates should be cheered by that news, but it is eclipsed by a flurry of contrary developments. As has been well publicized, gun sales have steadily risen over the past few years, and spiked with each of Obama’s election victories.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, of the weapons that proliferate amongst the armed public, an increasing number are high caliber weapons (the weapon of choice in the goriest shootings in recent years). Then there is the legal landscape, which looks bleak for the gun control crowd.
Every state except for Illinois has a law allowing the carrying of concealed weapons — and just last week, a federal court struck down Illinois’ ban. States are now lining up to allow guns on college campuses. In September, Colorado joined four other states in such a move, and statehouses across the country are preparing similar legislation. And of course, there was Oklahoma’s ominous Open Carry Law approved by voters this election day — the fifteenth of its kind, in fact — which, as the name suggests, allows those with a special permit to carry weapons in the open, with a holster on their hip.
Individual gun ownership — and gun violence — has long been a distinctive feature of American society, setting us apart from the other industrialized democracies of the world. Recent legislative developments, however, are progressively bringing guns out of the private domain, with the ultimate aim of enshrining them in public life. Indeed, the N.R.A. strives for a day when the open carry of powerful weapons might be normal, a fixture even, of any visit to the coffee shop or grocery store — or classroom.
As N.R.A. president Wayne LaPierre expressed in a recent statement on the organization’s Web site, more guns equal more safety, by their account. A favorite gun rights saying is “an armed society is a polite society.” If we allow ever more people to be armed, at any time, in any place, this will provide a powerful deterrent to potential criminals.