Did you see my conversation with two guys on Facebook about gun control? I had posted a sarcastic comment saying something like: Good idea! Let’s experiment with gun control in a localized area first, say like Chicago! Well, that set off a couple of people. (I guess they don’t know sarcasm when they see it.) Anyway, they were blaming Indiana for Chicago’s gun problem; because, Indiana is too loose on guns, and there are illegal guns being trafficked through Indiana and getting into Illinois. They admit that Illinois residence are going to Indiana to get these guns – believing it is impossible for them to get a hold of these guns in Illinois due to the laws in Illinois. So, I gave them that argument. Let’s assume Illinois laws keep from these reportedly illegal guns from being directly sold in Illinois, I stated: You both are saying Illinois residents are breaking Illinois laws to gain access to weapons, so they can return with those weapons and further break Illinois laws by using those weapons.
That’s a behavioral problem (i.e., cultural). For whatever reason Illinois residents don’t want to adhere to the laws of their own state. (And there could be a lot of reasons for that.) To blame another state for your own residents breaking your own laws ignores the root cause of the crimes committed and opens the door to a dangerous precedent. It would be like me, an occupational safety and health professional, blaming the manufacturer of a forklift because an operator drove it blindfolded and killed a co-worker. I would be failing to look at behavior and the root cause of the incident. I would be acting foolish in that example. Behavioral analysis is important in any accident investigation, as it should be when we discuss societal incidences like the Chicago-condition. (I think that’s what I’m going to call it now: The Chicago-condition.) When we talk about these gun incidences no one wants to talk about the root cause; because, that’s too sensitive and too complex an issue to bring out and deal with. They’d rather do the quick and easy thing – which is proven not to work. (Honestly. There’s more to it than that, but I’m keeping it simple. There are some good-intended people who don’t look past their hearts to analyze the situation and do something intelligible, and that’s who I’m referring to here; because, that’s what the media and politicians are trying to make the public.)
When these guys complain about Indiana, are they suggesting that because Illinois has a problem Illinois has some right to force Indiana to do something about it (i.e., change their own gun laws)? We live in a dual-federalist society, created by the Constitution of the United States and the independent constitutions of each sovereign governed state. When we look to the federal government or another state to step in and force a sovereign state to behave different than it has a right; then, we are encouraging tyranny on some level. We are saying that a group of people – due to whatever situation we want to focus on at the time – has some right over and above other people of legal status in this United States of America. Notice I didn’t put Country. We are a united, sovereign governing group of states participating in the Constitution of federal governance for the good of specific rights and responsibilities given to that federal government. Anything else is illegal and voids the contract of that bond; thus, my point: It establishes a dangerous precedent. This mentality has already led to illegal acts by our federal government, in my humble opinion, and only encourages anarchy (which I believe is the goal of some in order to create the kind of chaos needed to get away with what they’re doing on some level, politically) and another civil war.
Sure. It’s dangerous saying, “Everyone has a right to weapons in this country,” when we know, “not everyone can be trusted with a weapon.” (Notice I said weapon, not guns. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say guns alone. It was used to outline a responsibility of citizenry to be ready to defend the land; because, back then the citizenry was under attack and the government didn’t have the means to arm everyone needed to fight a war. They had to be armed and ready to show-up and defend when needed – or else!) But all our rights come with responsibility. All of them.
For example, the right to speech doesn’t mean we should be jerks to everyone and expect all good things. . . . Common sense says we must be tactful in how we communicate with others to gain positive outcomes in our relationships. Anyone with any life experience and common sense knows that. The same is true with guns, religion, etc. But, when we get so worried about the responsibility that we fear the right, predators will exercise themselves in the climate of fear to exploit whatever they can out of the disarmed, seized, fearful citizenry, and a free people will become enslaved.
It is beyond time that we, the American people, woke up to this fact and the actions of those politicians (and others) who are exploiting our blind, fearful states in order to extract from us all they can for their own selfish gains. It is beyond time we took hold of our responsibilities and exercised our rights as a free people, respecting in the process that others are doing the same.
I was going to add more, but I decided to stop on that last note. Think about that. When we don’t respect others, who are exercising their rights as a free people, we are encouraging their involvement in the kind of ideology we see playing out today (e.g., gun control, restriction on freedom of speech, etc.). As people begin to behave that way around us, what happens? We become defensive. A defensive person is at war with the seizure of their rights. They are not free people exercising rights in a free society. In the light of this truth one must wonder how genuine the calls for tolerance are when many who call for it are acting intolerably toward our rights and responsibilities as a free people.
Now, some will say, “What about my right to life? These people getting guns are killing people.” Sure, some are, but most aren’t. But, isn’t that the point of having a right to bear arms? We have a right to defend our lives. But, if one goes around making excuses for not empowering themselves to life and instead seeks stricter gun laws to (hopefully) reduce the weapons in criminals’ hands, they won’t have a life of their own. If the Chicago-condition has proven anything, the people who want to commit these crimes will do what they must to empower themselves to commit them. They don’t care about Illinois laws. They don’t care about life – including their own, in most cases. So, why disarm and dis-empower the citizenry to create more victims? It doesn’t make sense and shouldn’t make policy or law. Instead, a free people should embrace their responsibility and exercise their right to life by empowering themselves to life.
That’s why, as a self-defense instructor, I have put “empower yourself to life” in my blogs. That’s what we’re doing. Anyway, I’ve dragged this on way longer than I thought I would. I’ll leave it here and see where it goes.
If you have a question or subject you’d like to see me address on my blog page, or if you have an interest in learning self-defense in or around Tallahassee, Florida, write to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.