There's a lot of hullabaloo in the news recently over the president's nominee, recently sworn in, for an impending opening on the Supreme Court and her opinion of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "Is it an individual or a collective right?" some ask. As I have pointed out before the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Right and as such it is both an individual and collective right that can never be taken away but certain parties always try their best to oppress people in their exercise of it.
Now some like Wayne Lapierre of the National Rifle Association have studied the history of our country and found what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Right to own and use weapons to protect oneself. Others like John R. Lott have studied the statistics about gun ownership and violent crime and have noticed an inverse relationship between the two; having "More Guns" means having "Less Crime." I on the other hand as an amateur criminologist, a person who studies the psychological underpinnings of the personalities of people who commit crimes, prefer to delve into the minds of those benevolent government officials who try to outlaw people from possessing and carrying firearms. I have found at least three different personality-types that spend a good deal of their time involved in this endeavor.
The first group is those folks who I like to call the "Emotional-types" (we might say they have their heart in the right place though their brains are safely stashed away at some undisclosed location). They think with their emotions most of the time instead of taking a moment to apply rational thought to the problem before them or to even determine if there really is a problem to begin with. Most have been the victims, in one fashion or another and possibly even just vicariously, of some violent crime that involved the perpetrators being armed with firearms. To protect others from becoming victims of similar crimes they work to outlaw the possession of firearms by private citizens so, they hope, other violent criminals will never be able to get their hands on a gun and use it to harm innocent people.
One must understand that the persons who committed the crime that changed the life of these "Emotional" individuals forever were already breaking some serious laws at that time and so more laws will not deter them. Criminals understand the power of firearms and other weapons and have no problem breaking any laws that were written to prevent them from getting them if they want them, including stealing the guns they want from police/military personnel. These benevolent government officials act as if they consider all gun owners guilty of some offense, or should at least be treated as such, and they are happy to punish the hundred in order to stop the one who might use a firearm in a violent manner. Since these officials lash out at people based on emotions like immature children, they can be considered dangerous in their own light if invested with any power.
The second group is that lot I refer to as "Control-freaks" or, as others like to call them, "People-pushers." They like to push people around and, since they know that some people might object and physically resist, they work to set things up so that they always have the tactical advantage when it comes to any confrontation that might turn violent. With their minions heavily armed and the citizenry disarmed they can push through any government program, or pogrom, without any fear of effective reprisal from the affected population. They work well with members of the first group by appealing to their emotions and use the fact that people can be easily persuaded when they are frightened to achieve their goal of potential-victim disarmament.
The third group is the "Wheeler-dealers." They have an agenda totally separate to any argument over the Right to Bear Arms and otherwise could care less. But they do consider your Rights, at least to the point they think they have control over them, as a fungible commodity that can be traded back and forth with others whose support they need. "I'll vote in favor of that gun control law you want passed if you vote for my bill to make the alligator the national reptile of the United States." These folks think with their stomachs and are willing to do anything, Constitutional or otherwise, as long as they keep their bellies full.
The first type has a terrible mistrust of the American people. The second type can't be trusted to not commit some kind of crime. And the third type is not trustworthy with anything "We the people'' hold dear. No matter what might be the main issue that is important to you when discussing things with one of your benevolent government officials always ask them first what is their position on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (and don't fall for that old ruse about reasonable gun control). If they don't trust you with a gun, let them know in no uncertain terms that you don't trust them with neither your government or your Liberty...
0 comments:
Post a Comment