We-The-People.jpg

The Wages of Defenselessness

It’s as common as it is entertaining to watch a politician steer his great procession of conviction and righteousness down a rhetorical road only to run smack into himself going the opposite direction.  The Barack Obama who makes it steadily more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire the firepower needed to defend life and hearth, for example, necessarily crosses the path of the Barack Obama who makes military weapons available to Mexican murderers and drug dealers, breezily bypassing those pesky background checks and limits on ammunition capacity. The Barack Obama who now speaks into microphones of his support for the Second Amendment bumps, platitude-first, into the Barack Obama who spoke to Professor John Lott when they both worked at the University of Chicago, and said, “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

As is usually the case, the heart is revealed more by action than word, and the actions taken thus far will result in a situation that inescapably favors the lawless. Absent a groundswell of remorseful cutthroats who turn in their high capacity magazines and “assault weapons,” it will be the law-abiding citizen who is abused twice; once by his innate respect for the laws his government imposes, though they obstruct his ability to secure family and property, and once again by criminals who will exploit the vulnerabilities his obedience creates. 

Perhaps the President, who delights in festooning the stage with various people to lend an air of unimpeachable credibility to his prescriptions, can invite the family of Maurice Renard Harris to the podium for his next speech advocating ever more impediments to lawful gun ownership. Mr. Harris, 36 and unarmed (thereby exuding the virtues so many well-protected politicians extoll), died in his Miami home recently while trying to prevent armed intruders from entering his 11 year-old daughter’s bedroom. He wrestled one of the men to the floor, where he was shot several times.

Police accounts say armed men gained entry into the home before midnight and, according to the Miami Herald, “…demanded cash. When Harris said he didn’t have any money, the men grabbed an unidentified item and headed toward a bedroom where the 11-year old-girl was sleeping.”  

If only Mr. Harris had followed Department of Homeland Security guidelines for its own employees:

1. Evacuate (Have an escape route and plan in mind. Leave your belongings behind. Keep your hands visible)  

2. Hide Out (Hide in an area out of the shooter’s view. Block entry to your hiding place and lock the door. Silence your cell phone/pager.)

3. Take Action (As a last resort and only when your life is in imminent danger. Attempt to incapacitate the shooter. Act with physical aggression and throw items at the shooter.)  

And remember boys and girls,”Law Enforcement is usually required to end an active shooter situation.” Because your paternal government doesn’t want you to take matters into your own hands.  

Or perhaps Mr. Harris could have borrowed from the University of Colorado’s guidelines for self defense in a gun-free zone and vomited on the attackers instead. After all, as Zen Master and Colorado State Representative Joe Salazar (D) advised, “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.” Granted, Salazar’s advice was intended for university campuses, but aren’t they the incubators of truly great ideas? Actually, no … not in this case. 

I prefer wisdom gained under fire, in the real world. Mr. Evan Todd, who was wounded and survived the Columbine shootings, knows of what he speaks. And he speaks plain truth in his letter to President Obama, wherein he reminds the Utopian-in-Chief that:

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke. 

To which one might add that all the weapons ban accomplished on that awful day was to make impossible the sort of resistance that, at a minimum, could have saved lives, or perhaps even deterred the attack altogether. Mr. Todd goes on: 

…Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?  Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on? 

Obama-s-Egyptian-gun-control.jpgA stinging and powerful rebuke if ever there was one .. and one that will go unanswered, at least by word. But for many of us who see the actions of a President busy cultivating and empowering Islamic fanaticism abroad, ostracizing our Israeli allies even as he arms the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and hollowing our military while disarming American citizens, the question of whose side he is on is alarmingly clear.  

Mr. Obama has recently taken to using the language of the Founders to justify policies that subvert the nation’s founding ideas. So to clarify, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are meaningless without the individual means to secure them. Therefore, an assault on the individual’s right to defend his life and property necessarily becomes an assault on the very rights and ideals upon which a great nation was founded, and for which generations of patriots have given their lives.

  1. Elizabeth Van Horn

    Quite brilliant.  I have nothing but praise for this piece Dave.  Thank you for voicing, so eloquently, my own thoughts.

  2. Valiuth

     For a liberal the idea of taking up arms in their own defense is not something they are interested in. Their homes are insurred and they can afford to be robbed, the vast bulk of their wealth being in stocks, securities, and other virtual paper assets. If you steal their TV they will just buy a new one. Their fear is maybe getting injured or killed. The best way to avoid that is to avoid confrontation. So you run and hide from attackers and let them loot your house. Plus most of them live in very safe neighborhoods where everyone pays for extra police attention if crime even ticks upwards. 

    It is true many of their constituents do not have this luxury to just eat the cost of being victimized, but for them to stand against their political leaders their desire for self defense has to be higher then their inbred antipathy to Republicans. It can happen though. 

    As exemplified in the following song (No Holds Barred) by Sir Mix-A-Lot. Be warned the language does not meet Ricochet CC rules. 

    “9-1-1 only works for the rich ones. So I collect guns!”

  3. Elizabeth Van Horn
    Valiuth:  … Their homes are insurred and they can afford to be robbed, the vast bulk of their wealth being in stocks, securities, and other virtual paper assets. If you steal their TV they will just buy a new one. Their fear is maybe getting injured or killed. The best way to avoid that is to avoid confrontation. So you run and hide from attackers and let them loot your house. Plus most of them live in very safe neighborhoods where everyone pays for extra police attention if crime even ticks upwards.

    Huh?  Good grief, most of that doesn’t just describe liberals, that describes conservatives too. 

    I bolded the part that also describes conservatives.  I left un-bolded the part that I *think* describes liberals, but even that is not a sure thing. 

    Liberals are not some other-world-creatures, they just have a different set of answers, to the same problems that conservatives have.

  4. Aaron Miller

    The 2nd Amendment should have been the 1st. It is the right which secures all others.

  5. Valiuth

    I did not claim that they were other worldly creatures. Just that their lives are very insulated from the most obvious needs for fire arms. To them there are no consequences for removing something they don’t depend on. For conservatives who share in this life style their support is mostly predicated on some nebulous philosophical ground about how guns keep us “Free”…which frankly I don’t really buy. 

    Liberal elites are making a very practical argument for gun restriction.  They don’t have guns and they have plenty of freedom as do many other citizens in countries like Japan and England that have tight gun laws. The only threats they face are accidents with guns, or a one off weirdo getting a gun. 

    Their policies though cause direct harm to the poor and urban constituencies that depend on guns for self protection. It is this argument that is a gun supporters best argument for splitting up the Democrats and killing gun control. Because those inner city African Americans buy their guns for very practical and direct reasons. 

  6. Barbara Kidder
    Valiuth:

    Liberal elites are making a very practical argument for gun restriction.  They don’t have guns and they have plenty of freedom as do many other citizens in countries like Japan and England that have tight gun laws. The only threats they face are accidents with guns, or a one off weirdo getting a gun. 

    Their policies though cause direct harm to the poor and urban constituencies that depend on guns for self protection. It is this argument that is a gun supporters best argument for splitting up the Democrats and killing gun control. Because those inner city African Americans buy their guns for very practical and direct reasons.  · 14 minutes ago

    May I add to your last example, those families who live in remote or rural areas (whose number run in the hundreds of thousands) who know that any police department is many miles away. 

    The other category that comes to mind are the tens of thousands of people who live in the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, who are in the direct path of those who have crossed our southern border into the U.S., illegally, and who are poor, hungry and desperate!

  7. Percival

    Valiuth, some liberals live in very safe neighborhoods.  The rest live in denial.

  8. Dave Carter
    C

    Percival, may I borrow that?

  9. Percival
    Dave Carter: Percival, may I borrow that? · 8 minutes ago

    I’d be honored, Dave.

  10. George Savage

    Dave, beautifully written, as always.

    I can only hope for a backlash that frustrates President Obama’s evident designs on our Second Amendment freedoms.

    Consider that previous assaults on gun freedom turned me, by degrees, into a gun owner.  

    First, the demonization of “assault weapons” by the Clintonistas prompted me, a physician with absolutely no interest in firearms, to join the National Rifle Association.  Then six or so years ago, realizing that the latest ratcheting of California’s overlapping gun laws was intended to frighten law-abiding citizens away from firearms–an essential volume in my home is How to Own a Gun and Stay Out of Jail–I decided that I had to learn about guns and teach my sons what I never learned at their age.

    So there you have it: the making of a right-wing gun nut.

    Hopefully, millions more will join our ranks this year.

  11. Eleanor

    Very well said Mr. Carter. Yours is just the argument I have been making to friends who don’t ‘get it’ about what is going on with the gun control and possible confiscation campaign.

  12. Dave Carter
    C
    George Savage: …

    First, the demonization of “assault weapons” by the Clintonistas prompted me, a physician with absolutely no interest in firearms, to join the National Rifle Association.  Then six or so years ago, realizing that the latest ratcheting of California’s overlapping gun laws was intended to frighten law-abiding citizens away from firearms–an essential volume in my home is How to Own a Gun and Stay Out of Jail–I decided that I had to learn about guns and teach my sons what I never learned at their age.

    So there you have it: the making of a right-wing gun nut.

    Hopefully, millions more will join our ranks this year. · 1 hour ago

    Edited 1 hour ago

    Welcome aboard, George.   And thank you for your kind remarks.  If the stars ever align properly and I end up in your neck of the woods at the same time that you’re there, I’d be delighted to go with you and yours to the range and destroy some targets.   

  13. Arjay

    Thank you, Dave.  You have written what I’d like to say but lack the skills to articulate so well.

  14. Tom Riehl

    “Liberals are not some other-world-creatures, they just have a different set of answers, to the same problems that conservatives have. ”

    Real liberal progressives are in fact other-world creatures.  This quoted sentence embodies the false idea that our ideologies are equivalent in some sense.  No.  The Liberals are espousing the failed answers of the last century, which was drenched in the  blood of patriots defending the ideology of freedom.  Don’t try and sell this as a tame comparison of “answers”, when it is a fact that Progressive ideas are anti-freedom, morally bankrupt and have always failed.

    And, note that insulation from the perception of  a need for firearms derives from a failure to read and understand history, and from a false hope that criminals will choose your neighbor’s house, not yours.  Some addict, thief or pervert  is breaking down your door in a home invasion and you’re going to just call 911?  Not me.

    Get over your high-toned commentary.

  15. Tom Riehl
    Elizabeth Van Horn

    Valiuth:  …Their homes are insurred and they can afford to be robbed, the vast bulk of their wealth being in stocks, securities, and other virtual paper assets. If you steal their TV they will just buy a new one.Their fear is maybe getting injured or killed.The best way to avoid that is to avoid confrontation. So you run and hide from attackers and let them loot your house.Plus most of them live in very safe neighborhoods where everyone pays for extra police attention if crime even ticks upwards.

    Huh?  Good grief,mostof that doesn’tjustdescribe liberals, that describes conservatives too. 

    I bolded the part that also describes conservatives.  I left un-bolded the part that I *think* describes liberals, but even that is not a sure thing. 

    Liberals are not some other-world-creatures, they just have a different set of answers, to the same problems that conservatives have. · February 22, 2013 at 1:40pm

  16. Devereaux

    Valiuth – TR has the essence of it.

    Note that the liberals have had control of the levers of power in this nation since 1932. At that time they instituted a patronage system that has made it almost impossible to dislodge them.

    Having control of the government, and espousing a theory that government has the sole right of violence, it only follows that they want the citizenry disarmed. Armed citizens challenge the government’s sole right to violence.

    Recollect Gore’s viscous jab at his son, pointing to a SS agent and admonishing him that he didn’t want to end up “like that”. Liberals have great disdain for those parts of the government that provide the “armed” component of government force. They are, however, extremely willing to apply that force. See how they view the military yet send them all over for whatever they deem reasonable – as opposed to national interest.

    The current argument may sound like it’s about gun control, but in fact it is about who has the right to violence. The founding generation felt that ALL citizens had that right in the proper circumstances; the liberal disagree as that dilutes their power.

  17. Rascalfair

    Mr. Carter’s points are so well made that nothing more need be said about this.   We’ve heard “their” arguments, and they’ve been defeated.  There’s no more room for discussion.

    Call me when the shooting starts.

  18. Barbara Kidder
    Rascalfair: Mr. Carter’s points are so well made that nothing more need be said about this.   We’ve heard “their” arguments, and they’ve been defeated.  There’s no more room for discussion.

    Call me when the shooting starts. · 0 minutes ago

    Just read your comment, with which I enthusiastically agree !

    I’m curious about your moniker;  was it chosen because of Ivan Doig’s book, which is one of my most favorite novels?

  19. Dave Carter
    C

    I didn’t know anyone was still lurking around this one.  Evening folks!  

  20. Rascalfair
    Barbara Kidder

    Rascalfair: Mr. Carter’s points are so well made that nothing more need be said about this.   We’ve heard “their” arguments, and they’ve been defeated.  There’s no more room for discussion.

    Call me when the shooting starts. · 0 minutes ago

    Just read your comment, with which I enthusiastically agree !

    I’m curious about your moniker;  was it chosen because of Ivan Doig’s book, which is one of my most favorite novels? · 1 hour ago

    Yes indeed.  The Rascal Fair…”devils and angels all were there”…..the story of my life.  Thanks, you’re only the second person I know who recognized the origin. 

    Evening, Dave. 

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In