I thought it was a remarkably astute column and urge you to read the whole thing.
It actually triggered a small moment of epiphany for me.
When private citizens are deprived of their right to defend themselves, Jonas is absolutely correct-the police force gets a monopoly on "protection".
For me, the even more troubling part of the equation-and this is something I had not realized until this very moment-relying on any police force for protection makes the citizenry de facto victims every time.
Think about it for a moment.
Police do some kinds of 'preventive' work-they can patrol bad neighbourhoods and be a visible presence. But for the most part, they are reactive and doing post-facto investigative work, and "putting the bad guys away".
This makes the default position of the citizenry victim.
They police can/will only intervene once a crime or possible crime is in action, or post facto.
If you have to dial your phone to get the protection forces, you are already a victim.
The only way to assuredly be the victim is by not responding yourself.
The people who refuse to "wait for police", and defend themselves are grossly over-punished in our nanny state society.
So, the purpose of any given police force cannot really be distilled to "serve" and "protect".
It can therefore more realistically seen as to "respond" and "investigate" and then to use the justice system to incarcerate.
It's actually very sinister if you think about it-the state organ that over-prosecutes people who protect themselves must therefore be seen in the larger context of a state wishing for its citizens to live as potential, or actual victims in perpetuity.
The gun rights movement in the United States is very correct and very clear-and I am with it 100%.
An armed citizenry is one that refuses the passive role in self-protection, and does not surrender individual rights to self-protection to the state.
An armed citizenry refuses to take the de facto position of victim.
This of course, is the ultimate danger to the ever-encroaching, liberal, nanny state.

No comments:
Post a Comment