Previous

Contents

Next

Gun Owners: Freedom Lovers or Cry Babies?
by Paul Bonneau
z<dot>z<dot>paulbx1<at>dfgh<dot>net

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Adam Kokesh has come up with a project, an armed march on Washington D.C., and inevitably the Fudds and other assorted crybabies have come out of the woodwork. It's enough to make a strong man puke.

In their writing, all sorts of bad scenarios are cooked up. "They might play this trick or that to steal our liberty!" If machinations by provocateurs were all it took to eliminate arms in the hands of the people, then folks, it would have been done decades ago.

This line of thought imagines that our being armed depends on the whims of government slimebags, and that we have to beg and petition such slimebags to keep them from disarming us. Ugh, can anyone imagine a mode of thought more cringingly submissive?

The people who think this way—unless they can straighten themselves out, and soon—might as well sell all their guns off right now to someone who has some more courage and conviction. They are worse than useless to true freedom lovers.

Here's the thing: Being armed depends on you, and on no one else. It does not depend on the maintenance of "rights". It does not depend on the 2nd Amendment or anything else written during the coup d'etat of 1787. It does not depend on who is President or who is in the courts or on the composition of Congress.

Say the following sentence out loud: "If anyone tries to disarm me, I will kill him." If you can say that and it feels right to you, and you think you could do it, and should do it, you are a freedom lover. If not, you are a cry baby; sell your guns, and stop making yourself out to be something you never will be.

Well, what about a "legitimate" traffic stop, where the officer wants to "temporarily" control your weapon? I say sure, go ahead and give him a warning you won't be disarmed. Point out that if "officer safety" were really his concern, he wouldn't be attempting to disarm someone who refuses to be disarmed. Point out that the safest thing to do is stop kicking hornet's nests. Ask him if he gave his wife and kids a final kiss goodbye, before coming to work today. I'm all for providing warnings to clueless and thuggish "It's the Law!" minions of the state despite the tactical disadvantage it puts you at.

If a few cops get killed this way, it's a fair bet the rest of them will stop doing it. Funny how that works.

"But, but, but... the courts have agreed it is legitimate for police to temporarily disarm those they contact!"

Go ahead, sell your guns. Nothing stopping you. We don't need you.

I should add that cops disarming you at traffic stops is a form of animal training. They want you to get used to the idea of handing guns over at their whim. No wonder the courts approve, despite the clear unconstitutionality of the practice. If the 2nd Amendment said, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except at the whim of agents of the state," it would be nonsensical, self-cancelling, since it was for protection against agents of the state that the 2nd Amendment was created. Or is being disarmed not an infringement?

I am getting sick unto death of the whining and blubbering. Liberty is not won or maintained by such people. It's won by those who won't back down, who won't compromise or cooperate. It's won by hard asses, not by crybabies.

As to Kokesh, I don't know if his project makes sense, but I am reluctant to snipe at someone who shows some initiative. Whatever his other character flaws may be (real or imagined, but well discussed and gone over by the crybabies), I know that at least he's not a crybaby. Anyway liberty is not so fragile that it can't stand a possible tactical mis-step (if that it be) by a freedom lover. Getting on Kokesh's case is like telling General Patton to slow down and stop making such risky moves.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: