THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 705, January 14, 2013
It's so easy to forget why exactly it is that we
need to become a police state for our own safety.
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
One More State in the CCW Struggle—Teachers
[NOTE: I know some of you will be motivated to write to me about this letter. Instead—use that energy to find your local TV/radio/newspaper email addresses, and send this letter to them. We need to open those people's minds. Thanks. Alan.]
Permission to circulate granted.
I knew this sounded familiar—I've heard this whole fear-factor argument about the danger of arming teachers against known classroom hazards 49 times before. It played every time a state enacted a discreet-carry CCW gun law for its citizens. It was met with the exact same prejudice, scorn and derision.
But those blind fears about people exercising their right to arms have been proven wrong time and again. They were the empty paranoid rantings and bigotry of the news media, elected officials and ignorant masses. Their wildly promoted fantasies of death and mayhem desperately needed correction. What we got, and are getting again, is repetition.
The sky never fell, remember? Brainless bubbas left no pools of blood. Instead, crime dropped as millions of decent citizens armed themselves against crime. Only Mr. Obama's crime-riddled Chicago holds out one state from the national tidal wave of peace.
So—do we really need to go through the old Dodge-City nonsense again now? Should you in the ethical media remain complicit? Are our schools' teachers, their staffs and principals so hopelessly incompetent and without judgment that even with training they can't match the performance of toothless gun-toting hicks in torn T-shirts, or even doctors, lawyers and professionals with CCW permission slips in their wallets?
America is not having a debate about guns, America is having a debate about hoplophobia—morbid fear of guns. The preposterous disarm-the-innocent proposals from the left are a false flag. Guns are good. Guns protect us. Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still free. That aspect of this debate is missing in your narrative.
The errant behavior of a psychopath is not grounds to disarm or infringe upon innocent people who did nothing. That is an irrational, sick, hoplophobic response that cannot work, and cries out for compassion and counseling—for the person who suggests it. You don't want hoplophobes setting gun policy any more than you want aquaphobes as lifeguards.
Infringing upon the innocent to protect the innocent will not work. Denying a teacher the right to arms is a perverse policy choice fraught with ulterior motives and is constitutionally forbidden. Its very suggestion is a violation of the oath of office for elected officials and should be grounds for removal from office. Reporters should recognize this simple fact as swiftly as half the public does. The tearful emotional frenzy incessantly whipped up by the media does not change this.
Baby boomers universally remember rifle teams in high schools, varsity letters awarded for competition, bringing firearms to class to go hunting afterwards. The notion that guns and schools don't mix, and that gun ignorance should supplant gun education is a modern one whose origin is murky and suspicious.
The disarmed-teachers policy currently in place has caused grievous harm. Those responsible for this gross denial of a specific enumerated civil right should be identified and held accountable, and the disarmed-teachers policy should end without delay.
Denial of human rights never advances the cause of freedom or the human condition. It is almost as if we are fighting the civil-rights battles of the 1960s again. A bill to reverse the egregious discrimination against the people responsible for our children's safe education should be drafted and introduced immediately before further harm ensues.
Please Don't Donate To Us
In TLE # 704 Mr. Woosley, in his open letter to the NRA, the GOA and his "representatives in government" (Not his words, he gave a list.) made the following statement:
He got the numbers right, but stumbled on the basic issue.
I wish to offer a correction, on the issue of amending the Constitution for the purpose of eliminating or infringing a basic human right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
I have two points to offer.
1. A right is absolute, or it is a privilege. This is one of those black and white issues that the socialists love to deny; as rights and privileges are mutually exclusive. An activity or value can be one or the other. It cannot be both. If it is infringed by "law", as is possible under other forms of government than the United States Constitution, then it is converted into a privilege, or a malum prohibitum "crime against the state".
2. When the Constitution was being debated in the thirteen States, the Federalists (the Hamiltonians) proposed the original Constitution without a Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists objected to the lack of guarantees for the rights of the people, and required that a Bill of Rights be added immediately after the ratification—or there would be no ratification. The Federalists agreed to that demand, and made a binding contract with the Anti-Federalists to pass a Bill of Rights immediately after ratification. We therefor had the following condition under the Contract of Ratification:
In the event that any of the original Bill of Rights amendments were to be repealed or violated by any supposed "law", then the contract for ratification would be violated, and the whole deal would be "off". That happened, at the constitutional level, with the certification of the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting alcoholic beverages, on January 16, 1919. This was a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, imposing Christian theology as constitutional law (and the Ninth Amendment, for any kind of prohibition); and therefor violated the contract between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
On that date the Constitutional Contract, being violated, nullified the Constitution in its entirety. The same would be true of Mr. Woosley's (almost) proposed amendment to the Constitution to infringe the right of any person to own and carry any weapon. You just can't have it both ways.
Of course, the whole damned concept and argument are moot, because the new Empire (I call it Usa, after the old republic that it replaced, and claims to still be) has continued the state in a seamless way from the old republic. We now live under an "illegitimate" state; that finally got around to declaring war against us (the Americans) on December 15, 2011.
I recommend permanent abolition.
Was that worth reading?