The company Heckler & Koch—that makes so many very cool guns denied to us—used to have an advertising catchphrase, “In a world of compromise, some men don’t.” Because of the current culture of equality of men and women, I might change it to, “In a world of compromise, some people don’t.” I’m not saying that I’ve bought into the new culture, but there is no doubt that there are plenty of strong-willed women. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
With the recent mass-murder events—I refuse to call them “mass shooting” because murder is murder—we gun owners are once again being demanded to pony up, be reasonable and compromise. It needs to be pointed out that the vast majority of these arrogant and smug-smiling people demanding that we acquiesce are steadfastly immoveable regarding the issue of infanticide—what is commonly known as abortion. Both sides claim their pet cause to be a “right,” but here again, we disagree. The infanticide folks are of the opinion that their “right” to kill a fetus or baby is granted to us all by the government. Those of us with traditional values counter that the government cannot grant a right; it can only recognize and therefore abide by a right granted to us by our Creator.
For entirely too long, we traditional-values folks have allowed the other side to dictate the language and therefore the narrative. Instead of calling what they support what it is—infanticide—they start by calling it “abortion,” and when that word gets a negative reaction, they revise it to “women’s health.” The implication is that if you are against infanticide and want to have consequences for what should be a crime, you are somehow against women’s health. You’re nothing but a sexist pig that desires women to do nothing but crank out babies until their health fails—probably at an early age—and dispose of them so that you can go find a younger one to perpetuate your own deviant desires.
When it comes to so-called “gun control”—actually people control—that term has been worn out for years, and the people have figured out that reality. So now it’s couched in a term still delivered with that same smug smile, “gun safety measures.” Forgive me, because I really am trying to clean up my language, but there is no other phrase more accurate than this: I am calling bullshit!
There are more than 20,000 so-called gun control laws on the books in this country. If you do a historical research on the subject, you’ll discover that the impetus for these laws is much the same as the push for state-sponsored infanticide—control, especially for those of a black race. Former slave owners were scared that newly freed blacks might get hold of guns and return to the plantation seeking revenge. Given the way some of them treated their slaves, that concern may have been real, but it certainly wasn’t an acceptable reason to deny the people the tools of self-defense. It was Margaret Sanger, the early-20th-century eugenicist, and activist who coined the term “birth control” and started what turned into Planned Parenthood, targeting especially “poor neighborhoods,” now considered a code word for black neighborhoods. I am no authority on birth control or eugenics; I simply mention them as causes often supported by those same folks desiring to rescind the government’s recognition of our collective right to keep and bear arms.
The point is government cannot grant rights. It can only recognize them. The government did not write the Constitution—a document designed to keep a tight rein on government, while allowing it the ability to protect its citizens—people wrote it. If we accept the notion that government can grant a right, then we must accept the opposite; government can eliminate or even disregard our rights at its pleasure. Statists are absolutely in love with this concept; those of us with traditional values, not so much.
Even among us there are some who feel we should give a little to keep the whole. Trouble is, we have been giving a little—relentlessly—for more than a century, and we never seem to get anything back.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating, if you believe that denying people—even partially—the means to defend themselves by denying them access to firearms, you are deluding yourself that you are doing something to correct the problem. Think people! If you ban anything, from apples to guns to zippers, you are targeting and infringing upon the law abiding, while simultaneously enabling the criminal and mentally ill. The apple did not on its own lodge itself in the person’s throat and choke him to death. Nor did the zipper jump out and catch his tally-whacker in its teeth. The gun—even that scary so-called assault weapon (that nobody can define)—did not load and shoot itself at the crowd of innocent people. Apples are, for the most part, good for us. Zippers are pretty handy for keeping ol’ Tally restrained and out of sight. And guns are the go-to tool needed when evil rears its ugly face.
You may not like apples, zippers or guns, but you have no right to, nor privilege in denying the rest of us access to any of them simply to placate your irrational and silly fears. The rest of us do not have a responsibility to sacrifice ourselves so that you can be a lemming when faced with evil.
Some may still cling to the notion that “you don’t need a 30-round clip (sic) to shoot a deer,” or need “an assault weapon (whatever the hell that is) to defend yourself from a burglar,” or “a machine gun for any reason.” Therefore, we should be reasonable and accept “common sense” restrictions on gun ownership.
I would offer that those proposing these restrictions know virtually nothing about firearms, tactics or self-defense. How in the world would anyone respect such an opinion regarding such a critical issue? Would you want to buy a car designed by a kid whose only exposure to wheeled movement was a pedal car? Maybe you would feel safer flying in a plane designed and built by someone whose experience was limited to gluing up and painting model airplanes. After all, they would go slower so if you did get into a crash, your chances of survival would be better! It is, after all, for the “greater good.” Ahh, the greater good! It just feels so…so…comfy!
The greater good is not served if it allows itself to be slaughtered.
Let’s take a look at some facts:
Fact 1: You do not have a right to be free of evil. There are several ways of dealing with evil. If you have the resources—money—you can insulate yourself from evil by building walls around your estate, buying electronic security systems and/or by hiring armed (oops!) guards. Any of these solutions is capable of failure.
Fact 2: You are ultimately responsible for your own security. You may choose to abdicate that responsibility, in which case you will choose to acquiesce to evil, but you do not have the right or privilege to make that decision for anyone outside of your immediate family.
Fact 3: The rest of us are not compelled to yield to your irrational emotional and mental masturbations.
Fact 4: Yes, Virginia, when it comes right down to it, you are on your own, darlin’.
And that’s why I refuse to cede even a micron to the gun control crowd. It isn’t about doing nothing. It’s about doing something effective.