Every so often, if not all too rarely, an article shows up on the pages of our illustrious Canadian MSM that demonstrates profound understanding and insight. I came across one such column last Friday, “Hunting ducks, protecting families”, posted on the National Post’s “Full Comment” site, and authored by George Jonas. Indeed, I can’t remember the last time, if ever, a Canadian journalist so astutely and acutely nailed the underlying truths of this entire debate over the issue of gun control and the registry.
Resisting the urge to reprint the entire article, the most pertinent part thereof is this…
“The relationship between citizens and the law is magnificently simple. Citizens are the law. Not the bureaucracy, not the police, not the pundits: Citizens. It’s all right for people to take the law into their own hands because in a free society the law is, in fact, in their hands. It is the people who delegate the power of law enforcement to the police, not the other way around.
The police may think they license citizens to carry arms, but they don’t. It’s citizens who license the police. They license them to carry arms, to enforce the law, to investigate crime, to serve and protect. All power flows from the public to the authorities, not the other way around.
In free societies, that is. There are societies where power flow is reversed. They’re called police states.”
Wow!!! I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming!!!
And on a major news outlet website in Canada, no less!!!
After I regained consciousness, I immediately sent off an email heaped with praise to the NP, and pleading with them to please, PLEASE, keep it up!!! (Needless to say, had such a column showed up in say, f’rinstance, the Toronto Star, I’d probably be posting this, strapped to my bed, from a laptop in an intensive care unit, ya think?)
You know, if an article like showed up on any major news site stateside, about 98% of their readership would say, “Yeah, and so your point is?” That’s because almost all Americans, save for your usual suspects of the hardcore Democrat variety, innately understand such inherent principles of freedom, rights and democracy.
The fact is that, within a democracy and free nation, governments, along with their institutions and enforcement agencies…police and military…exist at the forbearance, forget about authority, of the citizenry. Period, end of story!
To protect this ever so vital and critical principle of freedom, wise leaders of the US of A enshrined the “right to bear arms” within their constitution, known as “The Second Amendment”. Ignore all the intellectualism and/or elitist misrepresentations (meaning, stupid bull****) surrounding debate of this amendment, and understand that it means only this: The citizenry have an intrinsic right to self defense of their freedom, their lives and their property from all forms of tyranny, including the threat thereof potential within their own government. In fact, historically the single greatest threat to the freedom and lives of the citizenry is at the hands of their governments. Within the 20th century alone it has been documented that as many as 262,000,000 citizens have been put to death by their own governments…not including acts of war.
In the face of such alarming statistics, the liberal left will quickly, if not frantically, decry such notions of self defense against governments as ridiculous, premised primarily upon two assertions: a) Given the capabilities of a modern military and/or police force, the citizenry stand no chance of resistance in any event, and b) Regardless, this would/could never happen in Canada or America anyway, the presumable underlying assumption being that we are “civilized” beyond such possibilities.
Or, to put it more succinctly, “Couldn’t happen to me…”
Perhaps history’s most famous last words.
There are two distinct ideological themes at play within the context of “gun control”: Individualism vs Collectivism.
Historically, notorious collectivist movements…notably communists, and yes, Nationalist Socialists a.k.a. Nazis…have justified their actions, no matter how viciously inhumane, by asserting the greater common good of the whole.
Conversely, Individualism, as a political movement born out of the French Revolution and generally referred to as “egalitarianism”, subscribes to guarantees of individual rights and freedoms as the foundation and strength of any society. One might describe this with the old adage, “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”
There is something implicitly perverse within the notion that, by effectively encumbering a citizen from insuring his most basic rights and freedoms, his property, his domain, even his very own life, society has somehow enhanced the greater good of its members. The argument generally proffered by the Liberal Left that it is the State that shall determine how the most central and crucial aspects of a free nation and peoples may be protected, if even at all, serves up the very antithesis of true freedom. At the very best, the forces of the State will arrive on time to collect evidence of an act of tyranny…i.e., crime…including the requisite body count.
As Jonas so perfectly delineates the truth of it…
“It’s as proper for citizens to defend their homes in peacetime against domestic robbers as to defend their homelands in war against foreign invaders. People who defend their families act as honourably as those who provide for their families. They must do so within the law, needless to say, providing or defending, in war or in peace, but as long as they do, one type of action is simply an extension of the other.”
Never were truer words spoken!
We constantly hear from all the usual suspects justification of gun controls laws, particularly with regard to the firearms registry, “If it only saves one life…”
I would counter with the obvious…
And what if your gun control laws cost an innocent man or woman his/her own life…or, God forbid, that of a family member, because restrictions were so cumbersome that self-defense was no longer feasible, or even possible, but more to the point, even an option???
…because, f’rinstance, during a home invasion, his/her firearms were “securely” locked away in a safe?
I am reminded of an ever so enlightening and pivotal moment when Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, during a publicized debate with Wendy Cukier, head of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, suggested to her, to paraphrase…
“Well, Wendy. Then why don’t you put up a big sign on your front lawn stating that there are no firearms in your home?”
I assure you all, you’d pay money to see the look of complete loss on her flustered face, and to hear the stammering and stuttering that ensued.
For therein lies the essential truth underlying this debate, one that even Cukier could not deny: Those who decry gun ownership, and would even seek to disarm the citizenry, nevertheless enjoy, even prosper from, a sense of, if not the fact of, very real security and safety on the backs of we who do own firearms.
Such hypocrisy! It defies words to adequately describe it.
Keep it honest, and shoot straight!