2008: Gun Control Candidates Need Not Apply
By John Longenecker (02/14/07)
For the American electorate, candidates who commit to the nationwide concealed carry bills and who see them signed into law will show a deeper respect for citizens and the law of the land than gun control obsessives can. It could be a winning issue.
How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of. — Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp (TX)
In national news, Sunday, February 11, 2007, Rudy Giuliani announced in a tour through Kalifornia that his gun control helped reduce crime in New York. (Gun control puts the K in Kalifornia.)
This is why several other Mayors are pulling out of NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s gun control scheme. Not only is it anti-liberty, but it can never attack crime when it disarms only the constituent.
At this time, NYC Mayor Bloomberg is under investigation by the DOJ’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the possibility of illegal sting operations, and New Orleans Mayor Nagin is under a court order to return weapons stolen by intimidation by officers following Hurrican Katrina. Guns are taken illegally. Gun control is illegal in the United States.
His Honor Mayor Giuliani believes that he has learned all there is to learn and doesn’t need to hear how wrong he is in bringing his confiscation plan elsewhere. It’s a free country, but some ideas are just un-American and reflect a poor understanding of what we are all about. Self-rule. Not rule. if you are really against crime, i suggest you meet with gun owners, the law-abiding.
Gun control contributes nothing to crime control any more than delaying police contributes to crime control. It harms innocent constituents by disarming the very people on whose authority police operate.
Think, Your Honor: Police operate on the authority of the people, so that when they arrive, they arrive with your appointed authority. Their badge is a sign of Official Appointment. You derive your authority from the people, and by law, the people’s authority is on scene when police arrive.
But when an armed citizen is on scene, the law is already on scene there, too. This is where gun control is breaking the law: you are disarming the authority of the people illegally. And therefore, you are not contributing to crime control, you are contributing to crime by disarming that lawful authority. Officials obviously believe in non-police civil authority when they employ private armed guards or personal concealed carry for themselves.
Individuals may legally stop a crime in progress, including in defense of another and in de-escalating their own robbery, rape, or murder. With authority. And under our values system. Gun control does not legally frustrate citizen authority – it illegally bluffs people out of it and backs the bluff with legal force. This is abuse of process.
Any interference – yes, interference with this authority (such as gun control) — shows a poor understanding of our values, our societal dynamics and of course, crime. It shows an inflated opinion of oneself.
Admit it, Your Honor: New York City is no model for crime control.
Any of the 2008 candidates for office in favor of any so-called sensible gun laws exhibit a poor understanding of our system and believe that they have some wiggle room for creativity in governance. They do not. This is the objection of free peoples everywhere, not just here: assumption of powers not granted.
In this country, individuals are already possessed of the legal authority to armed self-defense without waiting for police. How does a rational person believe that someone already in authority must get permission from a public servant to act in what is already the law of the land – and without that permission, they must be at the mercy of the violent and punished by officials on top of that?
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster.
Mr. Mayor: did you know that police have no duty to protect your constituents? The Mayors pulling out of the Bloomberg stings know this. Police have no duty to protect individuals.
Praise to those Mayors who understand the wisdom of armed self-defense when it’s needed most. Thank you for your service.
The Second Amendment isn’t about guns or hunting anymore than the First Amendment is about typewriters. It’s about concepts of liberty residing in the authority of the people since the inception of the nation and written to remain that way forever. To argue that the right is not contemplated in 2008 by the fathers of 1776 is to mislead the people. The First Amendment is watchdog of government in various ways, and the Second Amendment backs our sovereignty by force which cannot legally be taken away.
Taking weapons is breaking the law because it challenges our sovereignty with abuse of process, itself backed by force. This is not leadership or governance: this is an illegal challenge of sovereign authority.
Candidates who oppose personal carrying of handguns lack the understanding to serve and have only the lust to rule. The first step is, of course, to outlaw the honest. It keeps the issue of crime alive while people die unarmed. Gun control never reduces crime, but endures as an immortal issue.
Listening, 2008 Candidates?
They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters – with force, if necessary. It’s how 22,000 gun laws profoundly affect the non-gun owners in America: it challenges their sovereign authority, too.
Repeal gun laws and stop challenging the sovereign authority of the people: protect it.
---
Crime remains a tool for the arrogant to disarm the honest in order to take more than guns – personal liberty, authority and independence – the safeguards against the ever-increasing forced dependency on officials. See www.TransferOfWealth.net
(Printer friendly version) Email: John Longenecker
