The Post Gazette editors have gone all revolutionary regarding cracking down on gun rights.
In one editorial, the PG lets loose on a few protestors in Harrisburg, lobbing around the usual hyperbole and extremist labels. God forbid someone should not want to end up on a government list of gun owners and stuck paying $10 (for now) each year to be monitored. How nutty to recognize the slippery slope for what it is, on the way to ending the right to say â€œno thanksâ€ to government monitoring and intervention when you, yourself, are sane and bothering nobody else. God forbid you use a loaded metaphor to make the point that this is very serious.
One wonders for what some people are waving that American flag these days, because itâ€™s certainly not waved for freedom and your eroding constitutional right to consent or not to government control over your life, property and rights. Forgotten is that the government is with the consent of the governed, not at the whim of the majority, and that unless the consent was specifically given to the government via the constitution, its not the business of government.
To that, most libertarians would add that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect individuals from having their rights infringed.
In any event, any reader who might think my comments above sound a bit like an over-reaction, consider that another that was recently published by these champions of state control:
- Disarm America? Here’s how: We’re swamped with guns, but if we want to get rid of them, there is a way to do it.
Gee. And those protesting the slippery slope to gun confiscation are the wacko paranoids spouting extremist claptrap? Well, such is life in the Rabbit Hole.
To that last piece, prompted yours truly to send a letter to the editor at the PG that stands very little chance of being publishedâ€¦ but we shall see. It follows below:
Before accepting Dan Simpsonâ€™s gun abolitionist suggesting outright, I ask that readers consider these points before rallying to such short-sighted causes.
- How ironic is it that Mr. Simpsonâ€™s right to his own career is protected by the 2nd Amendment he wants to shred? All individual freedom to say â€œno-thanksâ€ to government force (even in a democracy) is similar.
- With over 200 million guns in the U.S. alone, its fantasy to believe a meaningful ratio of guns will be confiscated. Only the law abiding will comply (although this proposition would meet stiff resistanceâ€¦) and criminals with guns will have an easier time with crime.
- Disarmed people are potential victims entirely dependent on others for their safety. Experience shows us the police mostly curtail V. Tech-like events long after they start. Often, they arrive only in time to count the dead and start an investigation, as it is with most any murder. Even an armed, uniformed guard could have been an easy, unsuspecting target for the well-planned Seung-Hui Cho.
- Imagine the V. Tech outcome if, after Cho shot his first, he was greeted by 5 randomly drawn pistols operated by trained, decent individuals? What if Cho knew this was a possibility beforehand?
- History shows that individuals can only kill a limited number before they are stopped. Governments have killed hundreds, thousands, even millions at a time.
The truth is weâ€™ll all be safer if more trustworthy people trained to safely operate and carry guns vs. some Orwellian confiscation.
So have at it. What are your thoughts? If you’re inclined to agree, maybe its time to contact us and get involved!