Posted on 07/07/2013 11:47:57 AM PDT by Q-ManRN
Confessions of an Ex-Liberal Gun Owner – Part V – Lessons Learned
Thus far, I have explained my journey from being raised an anti-gun liberal to becoming a gun owner. This change took time as I learned some important lessons following a violent incident near my home. Here are some of those lessons:
1. I am responsible to protect myself and for the security of my family and my property.
2. The police are not legally responsible for protecting an individual or their personal property.
3. The police have a legal duty to keep the peace in a general sense, not in an individual sense.
4. Police enforce laws after they have been broken and they normally deal with the aftermath of crime.
5. Police are not legally bound to prevent crime and violence from occurring. If they were expected to prevent crime, then they would be legally liable when crimes have been committed.
6. Police are every bit as human as you and me. They are not superheroes with superhuman abilities to protect us or to stop crime.
7. Violent criminals solve their disputes with a gun and their gun is an essential tool of their trade. They are not simply going to give up their gun because we pass laws or hire more police.
8. Violent crime is not going to stop just because we have laws and police, no matter how many laws and how many police we have.
9. You can choose to rely solely on the police to protect you. If the police are unable to protect you, then you have to live or possibly die with the consequences.
10. Private citizens successfully use guns every day to stop criminals often without firing a single bullet. Please visit the website “Guns Save Lives” at www. http://gunssavelives.net/ every day for a few weeks to see what I am talking about.
Having learned these valuable lessons, I looked at my former liberal beliefs in a different light. More on that in my next installment.
Confessions of an Ex-Liberal Gun Owner – Part VI – Understanding Liberals’ View of Guns
First, we have to understand how liberals see crime, violence, and police protection. To sum their view up simply- they see these things idealistically.
Owner of gun (except police & soldiers) = Criminal
Criminal = Misguided individual
Police officer = Righteous personal defender
Laws + police = Safety therefore,
More laws + more police = More safety
Powerful government = Security
Crime = Intellectual problem.
In the liberal view, powerful laws are made by beneficent people in the government that empower righteous police to defend every individual; thereby, all necessary personal security is provided by the government and their police force solving the problem of crime.
When crime does occur, new and better laws and government-sponsored social programs with more police will once again stop crime; then, security is restored by the government and their agents. Thus, the individual does need not take any action to personally protect themselves because the government with their police force will do that for the individual.
So, we must rely completely upon lawmakers and police to keep us safe and secure from criminals and tyranny while providing for our basic needs. Failure to rely upon the government and their police force completely is criminal vigilantism because that is taking the law into your own hands.
Therefore, a private gun owner is a misguided criminal taking the law into their own hands when they defend themselves because they are already sufficiently protected by the government and the police.
Furthermore, the gun owner is already guilty of placing their family and especially their children at unnecessary risk by having a gun. A gun is dangerous! Therefore, only righteous lawmakers and police using their collective wisdom can safely control this dangerous weapon using the force of law.
The government will solve the intellectual problem of crime through better laws and government-sponsored programs. These laws and social programs help criminals especially gun owners understand the error of their ways in failing to rely solely upon the government and their police force.
Thus, the government and their agents are primarily responsible for protecting the individual and solving the problem of criminal violence.
In my next post, I will discuss the fallacy of these beliefs.
That sounds very Roman and very liberal too. I could definite learn more about using more colorful terminology. I am learning indeed! I never did like those jackboots anyway.
Blast! You got me there!
Challenge: Give me one example of a Genocide NOT committed by the Socialist Left or Islam.
Thank you for writing and posting. Writing is hard work. People do not need to read what is written here, so the fact that you are geting any feedback says that you are being effective.
Thank you for being part of the new media.
Serbs Vs. Croatians maybe since that has a more ethnic basis.
That is an uplifting thought. And Mark Twain certainly knew about writing being hard work. :>
Thank you for pointing that out.
It’s always good to see people grow up and get in touch with reality.
Croats are a form of, and allied with, Nazis (Arrow Cross), Nazis are Socialist Left, and if you take the position that Serbs won, it was in response to the Croats initial aggression, as was the Allies against the Nazi Axis when we responded against civilians.
You certainly know your foreign policy! What example would you use?
No argument there!
“Challenge: Give me one example of a Genocide NOT committed by the Socialist Left or Islam.”
Belgian Congo, 1885-1908.
Aztec conquests 1350 - 1519.
Ghengis Khan conquests, 1211 - 1234
Roman conquest of Carthage, 146 B.C.
There may be none.
There was a tribal crime against humanity in the conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda that is presented as Genocide. At about 500,000 dead, it is not universally accepted as Genocide, and both political entities had a considerable amount of Socialist policy in their platforms, there was just a disagreement on which group would be masters and which slaves.
Additionally both groups are very closely related genetically so they would technically be Genociding themselves. Is that possible?
Is that the link you wanted?
BTW, keep writing - good stuff ................................................................................... FRegards
The Belgian Congo may indeed fulfill the criteria.
You are welcome and you are right about sharing your thoughts kindly. I would be fascinated to hear about the points where we disagree.
I appreciate the encouragement!
Ottoman Turks vs the Armenians, turn of the 20th century.
That is the correct site (thank you) and he is helping me. I had to help a neighbor with a potential medical emergency; so, I chose not to hyperlink the site in order to save time. Never a dull moment!
Thank you for the encouragement.
By your definition, you are correct.
I wished to point out that slaughter of populations was not a new phenomena.
A fascinating book on warfare before history, “War Before Civilization” shows that massacre of entire populations was one of the primary types of warfare in tribal societies.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
“Ottoman Turks vs the Armenians, turn of the 20th century.”
It is a good example, but the Turks are clearly Islamic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.