Obvious solution


Why do governments take away people's power to fight back?
M.R. Jarrell is going full bore on Indianapolis' crime problem.

Here's my suggestion for reducing crime in Indianapolis. Open up a dozen more public firing ranges and encourage people to defend themselves. 'Fess up to the fact that cops are just history takers and have no legal or contractual obligation to protect people and move on from there. Indianapolis should become a "free gun zone", as opposed to a "gun free zone" which some "experts" would like it to be. Make it a city where the maximum number of people openly carry firearms as a true deterrent. Embrace the Atlanta Declaration and the 2nd Amendment as a way of life and watch crime plummet to unheard of lows. Start a discount gun program for seniors and low income families for self defence weaponry. Take the libertarian road, not the statist path.

Throwing more money into law enforcement, who will then use it to become "proactive" enforcers, will have no impact on crime. Some libertarians would contend that expanding police numbers and powers in the name of public safety is a justifiable function of government. I'm not one of them. Expanding the police state, as this country has done, has created an environment where crime flourishes. The "Wars On" have made crime a lucrative business for cop and criminal alike. There's no stake in reducing crime for police forces. As long as they are not liable for anything they can continue to scream for more money to fight the crime problem which never seems to get better. It's a vicious cycle. Less crime would mean less money. More crime means more money and at the end of the day it's all about the Benjamin's for the Thin Blue Line Gang. And power.

I'm not in full agreement, but I do think we should take a harder look at why an armed citizenry is not part of anti-crime plans, despite the fact that states with concealed carry laws have a lower violent crime rate per capita.

I've called myself a reluctant gun advocate and I am. But it is a simple cost benefit analysis. If a crook doesn't know if their victim is armed, the risk increases without raising the payback. That is why libertarians call gun control victim disarmament.

So at that point, we have to move one step further and ask if keeping citizens unarmed actually increases violent crime, who benefits?

The State maybe?

No maybe about it.

If they can control you by eliminating your means of fighting back, they will.

Think I am crazy? Think again.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Wed - January 10, 2007 at 02:14 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved