Responsibility

Where does responsibility lie?

By now, everyone has formed an opinion about the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, so I won't go into the details about it. It is extremely sad and difficult for many to process. My concern is where our conversations will head next. Hopefully we are all trying to reach the same goal: to protect our children. Maybe we do need to start the discussion. I'm ok with that. Let's let cooler heads prevail and consider that there are more than two sides to every story. There are no perfectly right or wrong ways to deal with this. But keep in mind, there are consequences to any action taken, as well as the absence of action.

So who is responsible for the massacre? The depth of how you answer this question says a lot about your views on government. To me, a libertarian, I believe that the crazy bastard that shot all those kids is responsible. To the democrats out there, it was we the people's responsibility to legislate the lawful purchase of weapons and make it more difficult to for guys like him to obtain the tools to hurt those kids. For the republicans out there, it was the responsibility of each of us to protect each other. Of all those arguments for responsibility, which one seems most logical?

I've had this discussion, on Facebook of course. My point initially was that we can't stop violence, so we need to protect ourselves with equal force. I believe that fully. I argued that point to the end while my opponent's comments were vague and moved from ad hominem to clear sarcasm while never taking a clear stance. Mostly, he was motivated to implement gun controls and made it clear that something had to be done.

But why do we have to do something about guns? Why would we control the only thing that truly means life or death? Proponents of gun control are quick to point out other countries statistics on gun violence. I will counter with the longer history of gun controls being put in place followed by genocide shortly thereafter. How much faith do you have that the good old USA will always be the nation it is today? It is certainly designed to be able to adjust. But it allows for corruption and will without a doubt, eventually fail.

When that time comes, our survival will depend on our ability to protect ourselves. Of all the constitutional rights, the only exit strategy is the right to keep and bear arms. Enter Larkin Rose and a small section from his book How to be a Successful Tyrant.

"One of the main problems that the peasants must be trained not to

deal with themselves is violent conflict. It is imperative that

they view you (and your enforcers) as the only protection against

robbery, assault, and murder. In short, they must be indoctrinated

in such a way that they do not even want to be able to defend

themselves. The reason is simple: if the peasants feel capable and

entitled to “enforce justice” themselves, they might just decide to

enforce a little justice against you. And that obviously won’t do.

They must be trained to give up their belief in their right to

defend themselves, which is not an easy thing to do. You must

attack “peasant justice” in any ways you can think of, such as: 1)

“Vigilante justice can never be as just or fair as our system”; 2)

“You can’t possibly protect yourselves; let us do it”; 3) “If you

have a gun, you’ll only hurt yourself”; 4) “If the peasants were

allowed to use force, there would be chaos”; 5) “Private protection

agencies would just deteriorate into competing gangs of thugs”; and

so on. Often privately-enforced justice is referred to as the

people “taking the law into their own hands,” which reinforces the

idea that only enforcers of “the law” should ever use force, and of

course the lowly peasants can’t be allowed to do that."

Uncanny, is it not? Yet we have those among us who put their faith fully in our government. So much so that they are perfectly willing to submit their only defensive (and arguably offensive) mode of protection. Taking away a persons ability to protect themselves is damning them to be a victim. It is because of our ability to protect ourselves that we can entertain the notion of peace. You know the old saying, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." Our first president said that.

We idolize our founding fathers for their wisdom yet we don't really understand their motives. People will inevitably spin and molest their words to garner support for their side of any argument citing their true intentions. In reality, they were set out to form a long lasting, free and independent, self-governing government. They fought to free themselves from tyrannical rule. They did this with guns. At this time in history, weapon technology was pretty simple. They had black powder and steel balls in varying sizes and both sides had them.

Now it is quite different. Weapon technology has advanced from projectiles to quantum mechanics. We can't have an even fight against the US government. But does that mean we lay down our measly arms because we are out gunned? What are your chances of survival without a weapon? How much better do your chances become if you have one?

The Solution

Ask yourselves this: are our schools under attack? How about our workplaces? Will you allow security guards at banks to use deadly force to protect money? Will you allow the people to use deadly force in their own homes to protect their property? If government dissolves, would you like to have a weapon to protect your interests? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are not for gun control in any way. In fact, you are an advocate for guns and should clear the way for any and all forms of weapons to be legalized.

If our schools and workplaces are under attack, then we need to protect them. You're not going to protect them with paper. There are already too many guns out there to even entertain the notion of a ban. And, I know, nobody wants a ban. Let us try some logic. Say you're a coward sociopath that is dead set on killing people. The motive is irrelevant. Lets say you want to get the most you can out of this endeavour; the more bodies the better. You have no intentions on making it out alive. Hey, schools do not allow anyone to have guns, bet I can empty all my magazines into people before I have to end it all.

What happens then? Well, body counts usually go into double digits. But what happens when someone shoots back? How many lives could be saved? We protect our schools by realizing first that they are battlegrounds. So are our workplaces. It has become commonplace for those who want to commit suicide to take a bunch of people out with themselves. It's sad, but a harsh reality that we will never be free from. If you have your mind set on obtaining a gun, you can have one in no time whatsoever. Even if you make laws to ban them. Even if you make laws to make them harder to obtain through legal channels.

So yes, I say open the flood gates. Let us protect ourselves from this terror in any way we can. Let us fight for our lives and protect our liberty. The status quo isn't doing it anymore. We need less gun control and more personal responsibility for our own welfare. We need to control our surroundings. We need the ability to protect ourselves from government, from criminals, from the insane, and from each other.