Comments: Taking The Law Into Their Own Hands

Great blog!

I agree with you regarding citizens taking "the law into their own hands". I have always found this to be a bit of a contradiction. If, in our Republic, government derives its just powers from the CONSENT of the governed, wouldn't taking the law into our own hands be redundant? I absolutely believe in the rule of law and due process, however, relegating citizens to the status of child-like "sheeple" is counter-productive to responsible citizenship.

I am racking my brain trying to remember the thinker that said, and I'll paraphrase liberally, that it is not only the right, but the duty, of citizens to be proactive in the defense of self. The anti-2A forces, along with the "violence is never the answer" crowd have no retort to the consequences of NOT confronting the violent amongst us. By not defending one's self, the violent mutants will continue to prey upon other citizens. In short, I believe it was a precursor to much of John Lott's empirical analysis.

This theory is equally applicable to crime and terrorism, vis a vis, illegal immigration.

I will end my post because I am echoing much of your original comments. A final thought, however, is that the pro-2A (read true libertarians/constitutionalists) are underestimating the power of the border/crime/terrorism issue as it pertains to gun control. The utter failure of the "government" to secure our borders, the inability to protect the population in times of crisis (LA riots), and the legal precedent that the police are not obligated to protect individuals but preserve the civil peace/order, should be a compelling argument for our side.

Hell, we haven't even mentioned the threat from space aliens!

Keep up the good work.

Posted by Chris W at February 24, 2005 10:21 AM

Actually, if 51% of the illegal immigrants caught by the Border Patrol were crossing in Arizona, that could be a sign of insufficient manpower _elsewhere_.

I don't mean that Arizona has enough, but if less than 51% of the total attempted crossings are done there, they could be catching a higher percentage than the others.

Posted by Jesse at February 24, 2005 02:04 PM

" 'Simcox adds that his group is made up of "two-thirds retired military personnel and police personnel." Thus, they believe they have the training they need to do the job in a reasonable way.'

"I'd say that should quell most objections about insufficient training. Should."

It's not often I catch you missing a trick, Brother Pub, but I think you did here. While I agree in principle with your subsequent argument with respect to the comparative firearms-handling skill and training of many retired law-enforcement and military personnel (and hasten to add that this should not be inferred as condemning all members of said groups), another particularly hypocritical aspect of the hoplophobe line of reasoning refuting this statement is that these individuals are precisely the citizens the GFWs single out routinely as the only members of society they deem trustworthy of carrying concealed firearms in public. Recent statements of Kansas' current Governor, among others, stand as testimonial.

Okay, so what do the public statements on such matters by a Kansas' Governor have to do with all this? Only that a good many of those illegals pouring through the border wind up in Kansas (and southern Colorado) meat-packing and hog-slaughtering plants; walk into an IBP plant on, say, a Thursday afternoon hollering, "Imigre!", and the floor would clear faster than cockroaches at a Raid convention. Of course, the packing plant would be repopulated again in time for first shift on Monday morning, with mostly the same folks at the same stations.

Furthermore, as Kansas' fight for a concealed-carry provision died on the Governor's desk last legislative session, Mrs. Sebelius used as one of her excuses for the veto the argument that "such a measure would make Kansas law enforcement officers' already dangerous jobs that much more dangerous," one of the standard anti-gunners' canards. Which naturally leads one to ask the question:

"So which is it, folks? Retired LEOs and military personnel are qualified to be armed in public, or they aren't qualified to be armed at all, and those still-employed professional LEOs are furthermore too stupid (at least in certain states) to adequately assess and react to situations involving legally armed law-abiding citizens? The ones statistically proven to be the least of society's worries with respect to firearms misuse?" And by extension (one assumes, considering the topic of this post), they're not even capable of dealing with situations involving (theoretically, at any rate) unarmed illegal immigrants?

I don't suppose we need further expound here on the antis' dexterity in replacing one set of tenets with another as required, depending on the circumstances? Sort of "situational substitution", as it were . . .

'Berg

Posted by 'Berg at March 2, 2005 01:26 PM

Berg,
I know. I miss stuff occassionally. Be nice if I had a co-blogger to help me out. :)

But the anti's always switch things around. They'll usually claim a cop or soldier is responsible enough to carry (& no one else is) until you start talking about letting them do that after they're off the government's clock. Then it's a bit different.

But the truth is that on the whole non-cops have more practical experience in carrying &/or using arms. Not that it's true of all non-cops compared to all cops, but there's a helluva lot of non-cops who shoot for fun while there's a helluva lot of cops who shoot just enough to qualify. Hell I know some people who go through more ammo in a given cartridge each year than some police departments do.

But the thing to remember is that the anti's don't want anyone carrying except the government agents. Anything they say will reflect this is they're pressed on it. & that'd be active government agents, not some guy who's retired.

Posted by Publicola at March 14, 2005 03:07 PM

"Be nice if I had a co-blogger to help me out. :)"

Mea culpa, Compadre! (if I may be allowed an inelegant mixture of foreignisms).

It's being worked on, I assure you!

'Berg

Posted by 'Berg at March 16, 2005 12:15 PM

'Minutmen' Being SETUP by Bush as DIVERSION From Iran / Syria Attack!!

Does ANYbody REALLY BELIEVE the Homeland GESTAPO has ANY good interests in this country???

I believe the purpose of this latest 'maneuver' is to get GOOD Americans KILLED!

Whether you KNOW it or NOT!! It's a TRICK and just the thing TRAITOR Bush WOULD DO!!!


PASS ON THIS WARNING PLEASE!!

Don't let them rush BLINDLY into Bush's TRAP!

WHY do you think he went to Mexico to chat with Fox???


March 26, 2005

Axis Power Forces Ready to Unleash War against Iran and Syria as Mexican
Military Forces Receive US Permission to Quell Arizona Region Militia Uprising
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index704.htm

Posted by Larry Lawson at March 27, 2005 06:55 AM

Grassfire.org is selling Secure our Borders car magnets! Go to
http://www.grassfire.org/
scroll down and look to your left! We need to spread the word and this is a good way and a harmless way to do that!

Posted by Chris at October 2, 2005 09:07 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?