It Is Not Gun Control; It Is Citizen Disarmament

My friend Sean makes an excellent point, laws do not protect the law abiding. (Go read that. I’ll be here when you get back)

In a truly honest society of responsible adults, there would be no need of laws. I don’t refrain from killing people because it is against the law. I don’t go around killing people because that would be wrong. I don’t need the force of law to tell me that another human being has a right to life.  On the other side of that, if someone decided that they wanted to kill me, I would gain nothing by yelling, “But that’s illegal!”

The law does not protect you, nor does it bind those who would defy it. All the law serves to do is act as an avenue of prosecution and punishment. As Sean points out, it protects the law breaker. Even those sworn to enforce the law can do nothing until after the law is broken. Certainly there are those dissuaded by the possibility of punishment, particularly where no victim is involved. (How many of you have sped past the speed limit signs on a deserted highway? Keep the answer to yourselves.) The point being that honest folks are generally decent to each other regardless of whether or not there is a law saying they should be. I don’t steal your stuff because it’s your stuff, not because a man with a badge might put me in a box.

There’s a funny thing about those bent on evil, those that aren’t bound by normal human decency. They look just like everyone else. It is not until they make their intention known that you realize they are different. At that point, the law has failed you. Maybe they will be caught. Maybe they will even be punished, but the risk of those things isn’t stopping them at the moment. This will end one of three ways; you will run away, you will stop them, or you will be a victim. There are no other choices.

I am 5’4″ and 133lbs. I have an extruded disc in my neck and mild scoliosis. I am not going to overcome anyone with brute strength. You’ve all seen my shoes, I’m probably not running away either. And I’m not about to let criminals dictate my fashion choices.

There is one thing and one thing only that has proven time and time again to stop someone bent on violence. A gun. And I promise you that no amount of gun control legislation will ever eliminate them, it will just change who has access to them.  The thing you need in that moment where the law has already failed you, will only be accessible to criminals and representatives of the government (some overlap). Or do you really believe the criminals will just turn them in? Even if they did, that doesn’t really offer me a whole lot of comfort if I am staring down a 266lb criminal (the observant among you have already noticed that is twice my weight; a big guy, but not freakishly so). My husband is nowhere near that size, but he could easily overpower me physically.

The citizen disarmament crowd would have me summon a man with a gun and hope he gets there in time. In that moment where the law has already failed. Either that, or be a good victim. If I’m very lucky, maybe I’ll be able to give a description when the government representative with a gun arrives. I don’t know about you, but I’m not much of a fan of luck.

I’d rather handle my personal defense myself, thank you very much. But those pushing gun control don’t like that. And it’s not about the gun. When they tell you that you can call the police to protect you, they are suggesting you summon a gun that is under government control. What they don’t like about armed citizens, is who is in control. When your elected government wants to wrest control away from its citizens, the real goal is control of the citizens. You know what you call citizens without control? Subjects.

22 thoughts on “It Is Not Gun Control; It Is Citizen Disarmament

  1. Well said. Some of our current lawmakers and “leaders” would much prefer you to be the victim, and that just isn’t right. Thank you for writing this!

  2. “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] ”

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

    “…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

    We went from ‘carrying a war arm’ and ‘bear arms of every description’ to 10 rounds magazines, or less in NY, no evil ar15′s or various other SEMI-auto’s, and whatever the government says we can or can’t have, the liberals ‘interpretation’ of the constitution as it works for them.

  3. You know what you call citizens without control? Subjects.

    I prefer the harsher but more accurate “Pets”. Subjects can rise up; pets are at the mercy of their owner, and are put down when they become inconvenient.

  4. I don’t know about you, but I’m not much of a fan of luck.

    I think it was John Farnam who said something like, “If you’ve been selected as a predator’s victim, it’s already not your lucky day.” And having been in a position where only luck saved me from some Very Bad Things happening, I’m not eager to go back to that place again.

    As I say sometimes when I’m teaching, “In this area, it will take an average of 8-12 minutes for a cop with a gun to arrive in response to your 9-1-1 call. Let me tell you from firsthand experience how badly someone can hurt you in 12 minutes.”

    As to the rest of your post, I absolutely agree. And OF COURSE the anti-gun crowd wants to return to a “government monopoly on force” (the term I see bandied about so often lately); THEY want to be the ones with the monopoly. The wolves are never going to vote that we’re having wolf for lunch today.

  5. @Erin: “Pets”, good one! :) Could also be “Service Animals”.

    @Jennifer: I shared this post on Facebook and tagged you. I was researching female concealed carry fashion one night before bed, and had gun activist dreams all night long. At one point, I was composing an original song about guns and survival, or something (I can’t remember it anymore), and you were singing a duet with me. You’re one of my online “go-to” people for fearless, outspoken gun rights, especially for women, and I know you sing, so I guess my brain translated that into an awesome pro-gun rock duet . . . the tune of which I no longer remember, alas.

  6. It has been suggested that the good people that wish gun control for others duly post signs to this effect in front of their residences: ‘STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF GUN CONTROL. THIS PLACE IS A GUN-FREE ZONE!’ fumbduckers…

  7. Pingback: Laws do not “Protect,” they Restrain – sorta, kinda, maybe sometimes | Not Clauswitz

  8. Don’t forget the other side of the “disarm” tactic — guns and ammo cost money. By “tax the rich”, Obama extends the disarmament tactic to reduce the ability of the average citizen to arm, and to develop and maintain skills using classes, training, and practice ammo.

    There is a *reason* that the national economy was, before Obama, considered the strongest part of the foundation of our national security. It is a robust economy, including useful, active pockets of wealth, that enables (enabled?) America to respond to threats internal and external.

    A money-starved government is a good thing. So is a robust nation, well armed with resources, including tools for security.

    • Citizens NEED to be armed for the same reasons Americans have always needed to be armed. Millions of gun owners didn’t shoot themselves or their loved ones yesterday, last week, last year. Punishing the law abiding for the actions of a few criminals or idiots is wrong.
      Explain to me why you NEED a hammer or a swimming pool. They kill far more people than guns.

    • Cernan – citizens need to be armed because (1) the police aren’t always available when a crime is being committed, (2) all humans have a right to defend themselves from criminals, and (3) criminals can be fellow citizens or politicians.

      This isn’t revolutionary France, and we don’t want it to become so.

    • Cernan, I’m going to sidestep your question completely and address something that has puzzled me for a long time.

      Let’s say, for the sake of argument, your side (and I say “your side” because your link goes to a place that purports to “Unite the Left on Twitter”) manages to completely and thoroughly ban and confiscate all guns owned by citizens. Everything, from handguns to shotguns to rifles, those legally owned and those which are possessed by felons. Every last one of them.

      Let us then further postulate (and fair is fair, I allowed you an unrealistic 100% confiscation rate) that, as politics and the American public are wont to do, the next administration that gets elected is to the right of George W. Bush.

      I know you’ve already decried Bush as a fascist. What do you do if the next president actually IS a fascist, and starts to oppress the hell out of you? All the guns are in the hands of the military and the police. They have absolute monopoly of force.

      What will you do, other than die, when they decide to pack you off to the gas chambers?

      You need to think about this, because this is exactly what your side wants. They seem to forget that eventually the other side will come to power with exactly the same capabilities.

    • cernan, others have pretty much responded as if you were a conscientious citizen, interested in defending and preserving our nation under the Constitution, that is, a patriot.

      Let me put it another way. Whenever politicians or marketers, bullies or tyrants, violent-prone or those that feel the world is against them, whenever the predators of the world identify a vulnerable group — they act as predators. Think of how newspapers and magazines transformed from the first distributions of thought and story, to vehicles for publishing product advertisements. Consider how President Obama’s administration, from the first day of the first inauguration, pledged to exploit *every* crisis. Consider how arms, including assault weapons, tactical squads and SWAT teams have proliferated through local police forces, and the various government agencies, including SWAT weapons and organizations in the Department of Education — to collect delinquent student loans.

      The Aurora shooter? He chose the *only* theatre in reasonably similar distance from his home that prominently displayed the “NO GUNS” signs. That is, the law *assured* him a disarmed target group. Whenever you create groups of vulnerable people, you invite/incite the predators to take advantage.

      Choosing to disarm a home, a community, a nation, creates a *false* castle of safety, a citadel that proclaims “We Are Safe!!” For the individual intent on hurting someone, on causing the most despair and sorrow he/she can, the false castle of “safety” makes a particularly poignant and inviting target. By choosing the “safe” group and location, she/he multiplies the damage done to those actually injured, by leaving the community in shock and horror, by leaving them feel betrayed beyond the injuries and deaths suffered. As a community, we chose to consider our children precious, and posted signs and made regulations forbidding guns at schools. What we *really* did, was to blazon to the horizons the message “Here is our treasure!” “This is what we hold dear!”, and, unfortunately, “Harm done to these, our children/college students/shoppers/workers/etc. will hurt us grievously.” For those looking for a place to hurt a community, this is a *most* attractive place to cause that hurt.

      My answer is to take down the signs. I *don’t* want to know who might be armed, might be visiting their child while armed — because I *truly* don;t want anyone else to know how to go about evading those possible weapons. I don’t want to spend a lot of time informing anyone intent on causing harm, “Hey! This is one place I am really vulnerable!” because any harm to anyone is harm to us all.

      History tells us that Japan, at the beginning of WWII considered invading California — and dropped the attack plan, because of the large number of armed Californians (that was some years ago). I wonder, what will China decide, if they follow the Army officers’ inclination to subdue the rest of the world, and take their place as the pre-eminent power of the world. Notice that we might not be in the French revolution — which might *not* have happened, if the population at large hadn’t been disarmed so that the ruling classes could so disparage and abuse them. — but just as we watch challenges develop in our own military strength due to technology promises that didn’t come through and budgets fall short — that other nations are watching, too. As the first and most important pillar of national security, as anyone that served in the military will likely tell you, is a strong economy — we face some serious risk that other nations will commit to armed adventures against the US and our interests.

      My understanding of the 2nd Amendment is *precisely* the French revolution — our founding fathers wanted to keep the government in touch with, and responsible to (and *not* in command of) the nation. The 2nd Amendment is meant to assure both the citizens and the government, that should the government stray into the bounds of “When in the course of human events ” (that is, the Declaration of Independence that laid out the course of the American Revolution) — that the people would have the weapons needed to bring down the government, and institute one that is representative of the interests of the people. This particular check and balance of power has worked, and worked well, for better than two centuries. In order to continue working well, it is imperative that the balance be maintained — which to my mind means that the government can *never* know who might or might not be armed. Because that would create a group of people vulnerable, and incite predators.

      Notice that I content almost all of the benefits of gun ownership are aside from anyone being shot, for any reason. but keep in mind, that the Supreme Court held that a convicted felon *cannot* be compelled to register any weapons he/she might own — it would violate the Constitutional prohibition against being required to incriminate yourself. The US Supreme Court also held that *no* citizen has a right to expect any police officer or force to protect that citizen against anything. The police serve the *community*, not the citizens, in a “statistical” manner. They work to keep the number of thieves and other predators mostly under control. Thus, the gun ownership mantra of “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

      Then there is the racist aspect. Most gun controls unfairly impact minority communities. Early gun control efforts were designed to have that effect.

      Anyway, enjoy the peace and what remains of the prosperity won in the past by citizens, with the use of weapons to stand against predators of man and nature.

  9. Here’s another reason citizens need to be armed: Criminals aren’t the only threat many of us face. Case in point – a good friend of mine was out for a walk the other day and came nose-to-nose (and very nearly fang-to-ankle) with a rattlesnake. Had she not been carrying her pistol, odds are I’d be visiting her in the hospital today. Dialing 911 would have been no help at all in stopping THAT threat before she got hurt.

    Most of the people pushing civilian disarmament are living a middle class, urban lifestyle. It must be hard for them to remember that, apart from the not insignificant risks of violent crime we ALL face, not everyone lives in a safe part of a city where money can insulate you from predators – two-legged or otherwise.

    I guess my friend counts as one of the 2.5 million estimated annual defensive uses of a firearm this year. Thank goodness she’s in that bucket rather than being one of the 8,000 people bitten each year by a rattlesnake in the U.S.

  10. Cernan: I have a better question. Why do you need me to be disarmed? Why do you need citizens to be disarmed? What do you have planned for us that us having arms will impede?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge