Safer Streets 2012: Repeal All Gun Laws, Part II.

My brand is Safer Streets 2012 because of one essence: safer streets as we all want them are an indicator of a healthier self-rule.

You will not get to safer streets nor a self-rule without smaller government first, and that will not come as long as there is gun control. Everything else, every delay, every complication, is lip service, designed to waylay our time, energy and spirit away from anything productive, giving us the feeling that we are directing things, but actually wasting our time.

We’ve made some friends and allies in Congress and we have unseated some foes of liberty, but some of us still have the impression that we’re not getting the cooperation we need. Somewhere in there, the new freshmen believe, there is such a thing as sensible gun regulation.

There isn’t. Gun laws are incompatible with liberty. All gun laws.

In Part I, I said that in time of violence, when the target of crime is armed, there is more law present, more public policy present, and more public interest served than by all 20,000 gun laws in force. With a majority of states affirming second amendment latitude, it is clear what their public consensus is. The major cities are out of step.

In Part I, I said that we are the Sovereign, and that our 2012 candidates must acknowledge this on the stump. They should be asked outright and they must affirm this by the repeal of all gun laws, please.

The repeal of all gun laws will unveil one powerful societal dynamic, and that is the personal independence of the individual. When crime is fought best at the scene of the crime and not exclusively after the fact, say, for instance, detection, interdiction, apprehension and the administration of justice, it is because independence has been brought to bear on the problem when it can do the most good. Our greater independence from our own public servants is critical to everything from personal safety to prosperity. Our independence from our servants is critical to self-rule and safer streets.

Centralization is the foe of all of these. Centralization is greater independence from the electorate [corruption] with the electorate’s ever-increasing dependency on the government; republicanism is our greater independence from our servants. In centralization, there is no accountability, much less any exits or alternatives to the State, only dependency.

I have a new video out which teases the point of how the armed citizen is identical to the CPR-trained citizen. I gave a talk last week to a republican womens group – the Pistol Packin’ Petticoats here in L.A. – about a concept I formulated I call The CPR Corollary. Highlights were captures on video and made into a tease for my new book. Like most groups I speak to, they were hearing the concept for the very first time; how the armed citizen is identical to laymen trained in CPR and First-aid; — and how it makes for smaller government.

Centralization grows because bureaucracies justify themselves by need, or crisis. They do this by smothering safeguards which work so well that bureaucracies are in fact not needed, programs which look silly at the very proposition.

But gun control is one such example of removing such a safeguard and then growing costly agencies bent on anti-violence missions when citizens can largely handle violent crime if officials would get out of the way. Officials did not oppose training citizens in CPR; that would have been an outrage. Instead, they examined Citizen CPR and, by golly, they got out of the way.

To our way of thinking, gun control is an outrage because it has the same effect as if someone told you not to do CPR, or not permit you to know it, much less administer it in coming to the aid of another.

Physicians examined the prospect of Citizen CPR and found it worthy. Today, three decades later, forty-plus states find the armed citizen worthy, and understand it for the very same reasons: police cannot always arrive with a life-saving response time any more than EMS can, hence, the training of persons to act in the interest of the community in the absence of first responders. I call it the attitude of latitude. Other people call it Freedom.

The repeal of all gun laws would be an immensely beneficial reset button for our society in reducing the size of government, and then we can see what sort of regulation the people would like if they had another chance to revisit the issue. My bet is that they would take their time. Gun control groups don’t count because they go against a civil right secured by law.

The repeal of all gun laws would reduce government because many bureaucracies might be very hard put to justify a second time their very existence if they had to do it all over again; this time in light of citizens who can fight violence where it is fought best: at the scene of the crime. Many of those costly bureaucracies would never get to second base if citizens were armed where they would like to be armed, free to question the need for another agency. Much of our money would remain where it fights centralization best; in our pockets.

_________________________