Tag Archives: responsible owner

The Barbarism of Another Man's Gun

To bear arms for the safety of yourself, your family, your property and your friends is a noble act — the willingness to take all risk for the continued security of that which you value without asking anyone else to do it in your stead without pre-arranged and appropriate compensation. It’s your voluntary decision to risk your life for that which you value.

This delivers a message of self respect and respect for others. “I won’t ask you to risk your life or your money (property) for my security without offering you something beneficial in return. I won’t ask those who disagree with my lifestyle to defend that lifestyle, not even for the magnanimous, fallacious concept that a culture should be preserved on the merit of its existence. I exercise my freedom to defend myself and my neighbors of my own free will.”

When you bear arms in responsible effect, you tell the world that nothing between birth and death is as important as the decisions you have executed for your own benefit and for those you love. It says there’s more to life than avoiding that coming death. When I bear my arms in public, it is not a threat to the public, but a promise that so long as I bear arms near you, I am willing to bear it for you, in defense of those who need help. Were all citizens to bear arms in all places, it expresses a society full of self secure individuals prepared to defend themselves, their families, their neighbors and their property with every force available without theft of other’s property to commit.

There is a saying: “God man man equal, but Smith and Wesson kept him that way.” Were we to do away with all ballistic weapons, we would not only victimize law-abiding citizens, but we specially subordinate the elderly and infirm. Four hundred years ago, whoever was strongest and fastest always had the upper hand. But when the weaker in flesh could easily bear the same threat as those with twice the muscle weight and speed, it created an equalizing influence on the safety of society.

When I stand with a weapon in hand as a responsible citizen, it is the highest form of responsibility. It says: I will ask no one else to defend my country for me when I am capable of doing it myself, and I will. I will protect my house, my neighborhood, city, state and nation. Come what may, I will lay down my life for my freedom, but I’ll be damned if I don’t make the other guy try to give his life first.

That is noble. A man willing to put himself in danger for himself and his family at no one else’s expense.

What has become barbarous, however, is the concept that police, federal judicial enforcement or the military should not only be the sole parties to bear the very arms we fought so hard to keep, but that we criminalize citizens for their willingness to hold back an interfering government and maintain their arms, to protect themselves from enemies foreign and domestic.

There is no nobility in demanding that other people protect your or your property without previously agreed compensation, and if you think the government taxing everyone to protect the few who don’t want to bear their own arms is far, imagine someone taking money away from me because someone else didn’t want the trouble of getting his own job. Does that make sense?

Bearing arms comes with a great deal of responsibility, and even risk. But when exercised, that risk is minimal and responsibility easily carried. But when millions devoid themselves of the very tools of their security and then demand everyone else pay for a security they’re unwilling to exercise themselves, you are looking at systemic slavery of the willing to the unwilling.

And that, my friends, is absolutely barbarous.

Make note that the title of this post has nothing to do with fear of a weapon in another man’s hands. If you are equally or superiorly armed, then his armament means little. It is that another should bear arms in your stead because you simply don’t wish to bear the responsibility that is so depraved and evil.