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.
Interesting answer! Genocide tends to be politically motivated at some level since you need manpower to do that and leftists seem to be everywhere which makes that aspect difficult to overcome.
I somehow missed the “or islam” qualifier. You are correct.
I completely agree, and you have done so with excellent examples.
This rests in the nature of man, and Genocide, as a concept, was created after some civilization of man had occurred, not that we are particularly civilized now.
Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the armed citizen over the disarmed subject.
I hope that you won't mind that I have cut and pasted your entire series so far into a Word Document, so that I can share it with some friends of mine. They have finally come to the conclusion that they need a firearm to protect themselves and their five kids after witnessing violence in their neighborhood.
I appreciate your writing style and think that it will help my brother and some others we know understand why it is getting to be not just an option but a necessity for people to be responsible for their own safety and protection. I have been working as a firefighter for approximately 25 years and I know how easily the system becomes overwhelmed.
I do not necessarily disagree with anything that you have written. I have enjoyed and appreciated your observations, I think that they are applicable to most if not the vast majority of the liberal thought process. I think they are especially valuable to those of us who come from a different type of background. But I don't think that they neatly apply to all liberal thought.
For instance... I know liberals who grew up in foreign countries where their experiences were almost unimaginable to those of us who grew up in the United States. Much of what you have written does not apply to them. But as far as helping those of us who grew up in conservative American families understand the thought process of those who grew up in liberal American families I think that your series is both entertaining and valuable.
Many of the comments you have provoked also contain good information, despite a few cudgermugeons who enjoy stirring things up just for the fun of it.
I disagree. I believe they see themselves as so dependent on govt for their lives they are afraid of gun owners because of their independence. They cannot comprehend our ability to want to protect ourselves.
They are potted plants - waiting to be fed, watered, placed in the Sun, have the weeds (criminals) pulled from their pots, etc.
The police do what ever their commander tells them to do..My dad, and X mounted man told me one day that if the police are doing crap, blame their superior...he's the one that lets them get away with it...
Being a man that had police working under him knew what he was talking about. He also had a superior he worked under, and up the chain it goes.....Crappy, sloppy SWAT crap, are doing what their commander tells them to do...blame goes up the ladder of command.....police are a para-military branch of government...
So you say. Prove it noob. I double dog dare you. Ask again, "Let us see you write something." I will grant you this: Write something just decent and I will relent. Write something less than that...ridicule. Frankly, I can't wait.
Keep up the grace and dignity. (I don’t know what the heck is wrong with some of these people. Nothing that you said should garner such hostility. Most of us have been on this journey.)
The posts are a good idea but lack detail and depth
Civil Genocide?
Just curious...
That would largely depend on how you define "legally". Using a strict definition of 'de jure' (of the law) it would be a resounding NO. But if something is done 'de facto' (in fact), and no legal consequences followed thereafter, despite a legal prohibition on the books (the law itself being ignored by those who would otherwise be sworn to enforce it), can you truly say that it is,in fact, illegal?
The history of this country is replete with examples of the aforementioned, from the very founding of the nation, to just yesterday, in one form or another. The 'legal' status of any one of these, far too often, is determined largely in the eye of the beholder...
the infowarrior
Who are you again? hee hee
Oh my - you've gone feeble again, Bob.
Here's the equation again: gonzo = Myra Breckenridge.
Try to remember the Pitcairn Islands .............................................................................. FRegards
:-D QSL
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.