By Gregory K. Taggart
USA –-(Ammoland.com)- Shortly after the Newtown murders, in defense of the flood of un-constitutional and anti-liberty legislation that was produced in knee jerk reaction, a prominent anti-gun personality plaintively asked “if what we propose will save even one life- isn’t it worth it?”
The short answer is, of course “no“, because if a certain action saves one life, but costs 500 more, then it certainly is not “worth it”. If this certain action reduces a citizen in distress to the status of a hapless victim, unable to protect himself and forced to merely wait for help from agents of the government, it is certainly not worth it. If the action causes loss of personal dignity and the destruction of a civil right that predates the Constitution, it is not worth it.
Regardless of what gun control proponents claim, attempts to disarm the public are most certainly NOT about “saving lives “; if saving lives is the goal, let teachers carry in school.
Why then, is there always such a vigorous push against firearms civil rights?
First, let us see who is against the right of law-abiding citizens to have arms – what motivates them, and can they have their minds changed?
The anti-gun bunch is basically divided into 4 groups.
1) The Magick Fearers
These folks truly believe that guns themselves represent some nexus that concentrates evil and badness in their vicinity. They cite flawed academic studies that say ”people with a gun in the house are more likely to get shot than others who do not.” Magick Fearers believe statements like that mean something. When you point out, quite logically that it is obvious and actually means nothing, the response is “what do you mean and how can you say that?” Simply offer the obvious counter that people who don’t drive are less likely to be involved in an auto accident. This has little to do with the inherent “danger of misuse” of a particular object and far more with its general availability.
The response I have gotten back is :”…of course, but cars are good, so we put up with car accidents and even intentional car homicides, because you know, cars are good. Guns are bad, so we cannot put up with gun accidents and gun homicides, because guns are bad.”
These folks are literally afraid of me and thee and Joe Schlabotnik if they know we have a sidearm on our person. To these folks, it is THE GUN which creates the threat. In their minds they have imbued a simple object with a life of its own; it causes people to do bad stuff. It is people like this who are horrified at the idea of teachers carrying guns in school – the evil “magick” that is emitted by the gun may cause injury to the children, or it may cause Mrs. Jones the 6th Grade Science teacher to run amok.
The Magick Fearers can sometimes be changed in their thinking, but it is heavy lifting. A good start is to ask:” if someone is armed, but wearing a badge, why do you feel more comfortable than if they were not wearing a badge? ” At least they will be forced to do some self-examination.
2) The Pacifists
These folks don’t like firearms, as they are means to dispense “deadly force”, and they do not believe any human being is justified in applying deadly force to another. They are anti-violence. This is a moral position for them, and while I strongly disagree with them about the morality and ethics (and I believe Christian Imperative) of self-defense at least true Pacifists are logically consistent. A variant on this is the “victim as MORAL victor”; refusal to fight the evil places the victim in a superior moral position to someone who has used violence to defend themselves. I think it was Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) who suggested that for people like these, it is morally preferable to have a dead woman strangled and raped rather than the same woman explaining to responding peace officers why she shot her assailant 8 times.
I must respectfully disagree with the Pacifists. Violence is always regrettable, but they make the gross error of failing to see that the morality of violence is independent of the act itself. Morality of violence is based on whether it is supporting evil or protecting against evil. I think there are some of these pacifists who do not wish to go out on a limb and judge acts as being “good” or “evil”.
I think each of us as citizens is permitted to make such an assessment, indeed it is required to maintain our civic peace. The above referenced rapist is “evil” and committing an evil act to which no one should be forced to submit and it is moral and commendable to use deadly force against him. The man who sticks a gun in my face and demands my wallet is threatening to kill me because he wants my stuff. What he is doing is evil, and to give in supinely is to promote his evil. It is moral to fight back; and if I am bound by morality and ethics to fight back, a pistol is more effective than a nail file or pocket knife.
On a larger scale, when the Brown Shirts come to destroy the synagogue and kill the rabbi, you bet deadly force is moral and justifiable.
Sadly, a true Pacifist will not agree. We aren’t likely to get a Pacifist to change his/her mind, without a Damascus Road experience on their part.
3) The Afraid
These folks are frightened of the mechanism, and cannot conceive that such items can be safely operated. They are not Magick Fearers, or Pacifists. Such people may be fearful of guns the same way some folks fear chainsaws or wood-chippers. They are potentially open-minded. We can reach out to these types of people. They can be introduced to the safe and fun use of firearms. Slowly, gently, without bombast and pushiness, these are a possibility.
We have to understand against whom we fight – These folks we can possibly reach with education, training and demonstration.
4) The Elitist-Statists
These folks just don’t like the idea of you and me and Bubba having a gun. Many of these people are elite politicians, or celebrities of some type. They don’t like guns in the “wrong hands”. They aren’t really against guns- after all their personal police and private bodyguards have guns. Most of these feel that they are better, smarter, more morally advanced and more broadly educated than the general public. The Elitists-Statists have progressive ideas and know that the great unwashed are unarmed, we will be less likely to object effectively to their grand plans to recreate. Elitist-Statists run the gamut from Piers Morgan to Diane Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg, Russell Brand and Liam Neeson to V.I. Lenin, Adolf Hitler and Hugo Chavez. They want all guns to be under the exclusive control of the State so the hoi polloi cannot object to the grand schemes of the Party or State.
It is these people decry the Second Amendment as obsolete or suggest that it only applies to muskets because the Founders could never have envisioned rapid fire firearms. It is ironic that they write their First Amendment-protected columns and opinion articles claiming the obsolescence of the Second Amendment on computers for publication on web sites, rather than penning them with ink for publication on a manual press. They would bridle at the suggestion that the First Amendment did not cover a TV broadcast, because, you know, the Founders never envisioned electronic publication.
Of course such a position is absurd, but it is trotted out regularly by TV talking heads. The irony somehow escapes them.
Elitist-Statists will never change their minds, they are enemies of Liberty. Firearms in the hands of the people prevent them from achieving their political ends; they mean to win, so firearms and other civil rights must go.
The Statists make use of the The Magick Fearers, The Pacifists, and The Afraid to attack our rights, but the latter three are just tools.
It is the Statists who are the enemies of firearms civil rights and of Liberty in general – they want the general citizenry to be disarmed for a reason – as the bumper sticker says “Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants”.
Gun Control is not about saving lives- it is first and foremost about CONTROL.
The Statists want CONTROL. We must be vigilant against the Statists because they will not sleep or relent, and they want our rights.
Gregory K. Taggart
30 January 2015