I got to thinking today. I usually need a running start, but inspiration hit and the thought took off of it's own power. Like a shot, if you will.
When the thought came I was chopping vegetables at the kitchen counter, and had within a short reach all the usual tools needed for the job: a good, sharp knife, a cutting board of adequate size, the veggies to be slaughtered, and a Ruger 45.
Now I know that last one seems a bit out of place in the average soup mis en place, but my dog likes to look out of the storm door during the day, and watch the neighborhood goings on. That leaves my security to a faulty latch lock, a 22 pound dog, and a handgun nearby. My neighbors aren't what you might call dangerous, but because of their, we'll call it "uninvited" status in the United States, they are reluctant to involve the police in their safety. In other words, they become prey to ne'er-do-wells who bank on the fact that the police won't be called.
This makes my neighborhood of questionable safety. I trust my neighbors not to break into my house, but I doubt they'd call the police if they witnessed someone else breaking in. Since most home robberies occur during the day, and I am home most of the day with the door open, I find it wise to keep my protection close at hand. And, as previously mentioned, this comes in the form of a moderately powerful handgun close by, and others placed strategically around the house. I'm not afraid to use the weapon, after all, it is a wonderful equalizer. It has a comforting weight in the hand, and what I hope is a terrifyingly large diameter on the barrel. Knock on wood, I've never stared down the barrel of a gun, nor pointed one at another person, and I hope to keep both of those records in tact. But the fact remains that I'm ready, willing and able to aim and fire.
However, since I don't have a sign hanging on the front door that says, "This Home Protected by Smith & Wesson" those casing my neighborhood couldn't possibly know to avoid my home until it was too late. But what if every home were as well armed as mine? What if it became a law that every household must have at least one gun?
Stick with me here, I know this is renegade stuff…
Current legislation out of Washington DC has been passed allowing the federal government to mandate that every person in America buy a particular product whether or not they want it or plan to use it. ObamaCare is it's nickname, and it forces every person in America to buy health insurance. People who have a religious objection to medical science, yep, they're forced to buy. People who are young and healthy, yep, they're also forced to buy. Every man, woman and child must purchase this product, and many courts are upholding the legislation as constitutional. Whether or not they realize it, the federal government has set a precedent for administrations that follow to make similar laws.
I'm a conservative Libertarian, and I don't necessarily believe in passing laws regulating how private citizens live. But let's imagine that the next president is a gun-toting Republican. We'll just make up a name for the sake of the hypothetical scenario and call her "Sarah." Now Sarah on the other hand believes that passing laws regulating how people live is ok, provided those laws mimic the way she likes to live. In this case, the law mandates that every household in America privately purchase at least one gun, minimum caliber of .22, ammunition must also be kept and easily available. Safety measures could be decided individually, her version would be a decorative sign hanging just inside the front door saying, "I don't pee in your pool, please don't shoot yourself in my house." This would of course be hanging above the chain-saw carved black bear with an amiable smile, holding a 12 gauge. But I digress.
Since there is a precedent already established allowing the federal government to mandate what private citizens must buy with their own money, the measure passes, amid much grumbling by those law makers who have never lived in a high crime area. Celebrities will lament it on day time talk shows. Protests and rallies will be held by those feel the law is unconstitutional, and label the law "SarahSafety". But in the end, the law will be enforced and government officials will be saying, "get thee to a gunnery." The Incredible Hulk, yep, he's got to buy one. Martial arts expert with sticks and knives, yep, he has to buy one too. Don't want it? Too bad. Won't use it? That's your problem.
The logic behind this measure would be, "federal, state and local governments will now have to spend less money on law enforcement." The lack of logic would be totally dwarfed by the loss of liberty, just as it was in the case of ObamaCare. All so that Sarah can put a gold star sticker next to another item on her "Campaign Promise To-Do List". And maybe a heart sticker too. And a doodle of a unicorn. There may be some logic to the law that could hold water, but most of it would be like a sieve. Crime rates might go down as criminals decided the pawn price of a HDTV wasn't worth the risk that the home owner is very probably packing heat. After all, if they're forced to buy it, they'll probably be antsy to use it. So home invasion statistics might decrease, but crime of passion statistics might increase. The logic just doesn't hold, but the logic isn't the point.
Like I said, I'm not in favor of laws that dictate how you live, but I do think that each person has a responsibility to arm himself, that's why it was vouchsafed in the Bill of Rights by our forefathers. The architects of this country thought that it was so important to be armed, that they listed it amongst our inalienable rights. To them it wasn't just a right, it was a responsibility. Responsible people could protect themselves, not only from the ill-intentioned, but from government forces who had over-stepped the bounds of their own responsibilities. Take the Libyans in their current situation. Were each and every citizen armed, an uprising of citizens could, by force, remove leaders disloyal to their best interest. An unarmed people, especially those that willingly give up the right to bear arms (such as those in favor of "gun control") are at the mercy of any force seeking to do them harm, including their own government. What better way do individuals have of protecting their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? And allow your mind to wander down the halls of history, and try to remember if there were ever any large governments that didn't arm themselves. Ask yourself, "if disarming people is the pathway to safety, why do governments arm themselves so heavily?" No, the pathway to safety, comfort and ultimately peace, is a well armed society, ready to neutralize threats in their home, in their halls of justice, in their places of business and in their places of worship.
So arm yourself. Learn your weapon so that you may handle it safely. Be prepared to use it and hope you never need to. And remember this: laws don't protect people, they only provide a means for prosecution after harm has already been done. But harm may not have a change to be done, if your protection is close at hand. Speaking of which...soup's ready!
