Statists gonna state

President Obama has now stepped up his reshaping of America. Yesterday, after talking at length about how he will solve the “gun violence” problem (note,  the phrase “gun control” has been replaced by “gun violence”, just as “global warming” has been replaced by “climate change”), Obama proceeded to remind Americans that they have responsibilities. You know, the nation which gives the most to other countries in foreign aid, which gave the Soviet Union material resources to fight the Nazis, which fought against the Japanese in the Pacific and sent troops to fight the Nazis in Europe in order to ensure freedom for the whole world – that America needs to be reminded that its citizens have lost touch with their responsibilities and they need an imperial president par none to lead them. The new measures proposed by Obama to curb “gun violence” will add more bureaucratic red tape to the legal purchasing of a firearm and is squarely aimed at already responsible gun owners and citizens. Turns out those “religious right-wing gun nuts” might’ve been correct about soft tyranny after all.

Over the past year, America has been rocked by a number of violent tragedies involving firearms. It is understandable that in the wake of such tragedies, Americans are deeply saddened and not only want to know why these things happen, but also what can be done to keep them from happening again. Sadly though the usual response from liberal commentators such as MSNBC’s Ed Schultz and big government proponents like Obama is that Americans are simply too free. The Constitution, the country’s legal backbone, is said to be too “archaic.” Of course only the 2nd Amendment, which protects one’s right to keep and bear arms, is seen as archaic. The 1st Amendment, which protects free speech, is sacrosanct when one wishes to criticize Republicans or Christians but if people criticize Obama they should be banned from public discussion and taken off the air.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Ayn Rand once said that, “the right to life is the source of all rights – and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.” (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 29) If property is essential to man’s survival, then so is the ability to protect and preserve that property – our lives, our homes and all other possessions. In order to do so, people must have the freedom to equip themselves with the appropriate tools for the job – what gives government the right to take away the basic human rights of the majority of responsible Americans because of the actions of one or two mentally unstable individuals? There are, quite simply, bad people who do bad things: homes are broken into, cars are stolen, people are murdered, and often times the perpetrators are armed, even in areas with very strict gun control laws, areas such as Chicago and Connecticut. Guess what? Criminals don’t care about laws and rules! If someone is hell bent on killing a bunch of people he will do it with a knife, explosives or even his bare hands if it comes down to it. The Fort Hood shooting took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others. With all that military and government control one would’ve thought such a thing would never have happened. Maybe he used an “assault” rifle? Nope, he used one FN Five-seven semi-automatic pistol. How about the 2011 Norway attacks? You know, Norway, a model country of socialism, equal prosperity for all, and fantastic gun control laws? Well, the convicted murderer Anders Breivik decided to obtain a semi-automatic rifle and a Glock pistol legally in Norway, noting that he had a “clean criminal record, hunting license, and two guns (a Benelli Nova 12 gauge Pump-action shotgun and a .308 Bolt-action rifle) already for seven years”, and that obtaining the guns legally should therefore not be a problem. Most acts of “gun violence” are perpetrated by individuals using pistols, not “assault” rifles. (Do yourself a favour and go here to learn more) Thus I really do not see how the banning of certain rifles, which simply look military-esque but actually fire one bullet just like rifles which look ‘normal,’ and the banning of “high capacity” magazines (people can simply purchase more magazines then), will help to curb “gun violence.”

Obama also stated that citizens who wish to purchase a firearm will be subject to an extensive background check and they will have to fill out a lot of paperwork in order to obtain a firearm – because, you know, even criminals or the mentally unstable will state that they want to use the weapon for mass murder on a government form. Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who recently murdered 27 people, including 20 children, committed the atrocity with his mother’s legally purchased and registered Bushmaster XM-15, which is, yeah you guessed it, a semi-automatic rifle. (Just a reminder, semi-automatic means that it fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled.) Anyway, it’s not Adam Lanza that’s guilty – it’s society and all the responsible gun owners and gun users.

Typically, it is the areas with the most restrictions on guns and the greatest government presence that actually have the highest crime rates. Across the US it is the cities that have the worst violence that also have the most laws against gun ownership, the most government surveillance and the strongest concentration of law enforcement officers. Protecting citizens from force is the entire point of government. If restrictions on private gun ownership and a state monopoly on arms cannot adequately protect the innocent, citizens must be allowed to do so themselves rather than hoping that dialing 911 will resolve a crisis in which every second counts.

Of course liberal Hollywood’s glorification of violence wasn’t mentioned once in Obama’s proposals, nor was the issue of mental illness. The proposals are perfectly in line with the big government statism which Obama embodies but he will not succeed in taking away people’s right to defend themselves.

Semper Fi

Advertisements