Gun owners often remark that they carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy. This is cute, but it makes the point. In this country, the citizen is supreme authority, and when a citizen is armed, the law is present. It is on our authority that we delegate to law enforcement powers we wish them to have in order to do the jobs we ask of them. In doing this, however, we have never surrendered the totality of our supreme authority as the Sovereign. It is this which is recognized by forty-eight states who affirm the armed citizen within their borders, and who respect the rights of visitors from other states to be armed.
When I write about guns on campus, or other venues of armed citizen, I point out that the citizen has not only the right to armed self-defense, but also the legal authority to act in the absence of police. I compare this to Citizen CPR in the absence of Paramedics.
This comes from many sources, from public policy and public interest to just powers to general codified law and most of all from the idea that the citizens in this country are in fact the Sovereign. The second amendment in this country is the lethal force which backs our authority as the Sovereign. As the Sovereign, citizens cannot be subject to any gun control laws which attempt to regulate our being armed with lethal force. Our states predate the federal government and the feds are a creation of the states. As such, gun laws are a challenge to our sovereign authority as supreme. Little by little, our sovereignty is not only being blamed as hostile attitude and anti-government, but attitudes against guns and sovereignty are instigated as part of a larger movement to transfer sovereignty from the citizen to the State. I assure you, such a transfer is possible. Gun control is essential to losing our sovereignty over our government servants and our freedoms of movement. As such, there can be no such thing as so-called sensible gun laws.
All gun control is illegal because it challenges our authority and plumbs the depths of the careless tolerance of the electorate. In time of violence, more gun control is politically made to sound reasonable. In this country, there is no legal standing with which to challenge or infringe on the second amendment. It would be the same as claiming standing to own another human being somehow. Even a little is illegal.
But in time of violence, the armed citizen plays a vital role in community safety by dint of that very citizen authority. Put simply, when gun control is applied, it creates a void in how violence is fought. The State then purports to fill this void with costly bureaucracies which never quite work. Some recognize this as the Hegelian model of governing by crisis. It is amazing how popular 19th century German philosophers are. My mission is to show the role of the armed citizen in the 21st century in reducing Hegelian influence and how the second amendment fights tyranny non-violently and through due process.
That citizen purpose is to meet and respond to violent crime in the absence of first responders such that the costly bureaucracies are impeached as unneeded. The repeal of gun laws is necessary if 2012 candidates are going to stump for smaller government. A return to the values of Independence and Integrity is necessary, and 2012 candidates need to enunciate these. Nothing would say it better than the repeal of gun laws.
You see, the armed citizen is the first line of defense in time of violent acts, and when these come under greater control of the electorate, the many policies of anti-violence, anti-hate, anti-greed and anti-bigotry are impeached as unneeded, a redundancy practice which as at the core of big government. Impeach that incentive of apparent necessity and you have your list of which bureaucracies to cut first. It can begin to unwind billions in unneeded programs. Tens of billions.
Tactically speaking, armed citizens work very well in those forty-eight states who affirm the armed citizen. Legislators have been given no reason to regret affirming second amendment values, and enjoy a better rapport with constituents. Some states have no gun registration, for instance, and no requirements for a permit.
[Only 20% of the electorate describes itself as liberal or thinking in terms of big government gun control, while the rest are libertarian, conservative and independent and think more of personal independence from their servants.]
In 2008, the nation saw a dramatic increase in gun sales among those libertarian, independent and conservative adults. Estimates run close to about ten million adults who bought guns. Many liberal writers posted that conservatives bought guns after the 2008 presidential election as a temper tantrum and bought while they could, thinking of the prospect of gun confiscations under the Obama administration. The fact was, however, more contemplative than that: conservatives, libertarians and independents sensed instead adverse changes in law enforcement funding, law enforcement missions in how crime is defined, new rules of plea bargaining, the early release of thugs, crowded court calendars and, as always, the experience that many serial killers and others are not caught (or they wouldn’t be so serial). Too many murders, for instance, are unsolved.
Millions came to realize that it would be better to heed 80 million gun owners and the reality that it is better to have the upper hand with authority and lethal force than to be victimized by both the thugs now and then the system later. This doesn’t mean you shoot people, it means you are able to stop the crime in progress from becoming a completed act, thereby avoiding becoming a victim of an indifferent system as well.
When the sovereignty of the citizen is officially acknowledged – as it is in a majority of states but not so many major cities – you can get a better handle on violent crime. That means you get a handle on revenues and spending. You can actually reduce the size of government if gun control is repealed and sovereignty is affirmed.
This is because, at the scene of the crime, gun control is among the policies most absent. If its purpose is to reduce violence, anti-violence programs have called in sick.
In contrast, 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 the gun laws in force, gun laws which are utterly absent from that scene at the moment they are needed most. There is then no more void. The citizen authority has filled it.
Remember that you do not find violence, it finds you, and any policy of disarming the Sovereign in this country is essential to the eventual transfer of our sovereignty away from the citizen and to the State.
Every 2012 candidate needs to be asked if they believe the citizens of this country are the Sovereign. They then need to be asked on the record why they would permit the servants’ gun control of the Sovereign even one more day.