“In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the 'collective' right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.”
by Stephen P. Halbrook




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

make your own future

Yesterday, I accurately said that there was nothing I could add to the letter A Girl and Her Gun wrote to those who would deprive her of her rights, and I stand by those words; however, coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous, and here I am… shall-we-say "expanding" on her driving point.

I found myself re-(re-?)reading Fallen Angels recently (available free online through Baen, if you feel so inclined), as a break between Dead Zero (an… interesting book, and one that I will have to review soon) and Soft Target, and I was intrigued/amazed by the prescient writing of Niven, Pournelle, and Flynn. No, they were not exactly on the money when the book was written back in 1992, but they were damned closer than I would like.

The modern-day future they paint is chilling, both literally and figuratively – "science" has been painted as the evil demon destroying the world around us, and thus has been cast down and replaced with "environmentalism", "conservation", the belief that "crystals have power" and all the rest of that greenie gos-se. Industry has been stymied. Popular opinion has replaced the scientific method. Talk about hard sciences or even science fiction results in "reeducation". Computers are regarded as "unreliable" and used only for monitoring and controlling the populace. "Belief" is considered to be more accurate than "facts", and "the alleged objectivity of materialist science was an invention of heterosexual, white males, so we shouldn’t use that as a basis for judgment" (a quote from the book). Remind you of anything?

Anywise, one of the fen – the folks who still read science fiction, and still try to keep the torch of civilization lit – made this comment in response to one of the main characters being confused as to the difference between scifi and the pabulum being written by the "mundanes", as they are called:

Thor: "Well, you can see it in our stories. Mainstream literature is about Being. For character studies, it’s probably the best genre around; but nothing happens, nothing changes. Imaginative literature is about Doing. About making the future, not just bemoaning it. We’ll all be living in the future by and by. Some of us like to scout ahead."

Taken literally, I find the parallels between contemporary "mainstream literature" and the fictional ones being described above to be far too strong for my likings – one need only examine the "Twilight" series (otherwise known as "The Importance of Having an (Abusive, Violent) Boyfriend (with a Whacked-Out Family)") in comparison to… well… pretty much any science fiction written over the past 50 years.

However, step away from the paradigm of science fiction versus mainstream, science versus faith, and recast your thoughts around the notion of our ongoing fights for the preservations of our individual rights, including the right to self-defense and the right to peaceably own property.

bradycampaignselfdefenseOn the one hand, when it comes to "gun control", nothing happens, and nothing changes; people who were victimized by criminals using firearms and who then buy into the "gun control" cult never recover from being victims. One need only examine the self-inflicted* situation of Joan Peterson, a person who is as much a "gun violence" victim as I am an Alzheimer’s victim – she has chosen to never move past her mentally unbalanced brother-in-law murdering her sister. That is, of course, her choice, and I will never begrudge anyone their own choices when it comes to their own lives; however, it is a damned shame, and it is completely reprehensible that she would use her sister’s blood to drag us all down to her "voluntary, willing victim" status. Not only is trapped in bemoaning the past, present, and future, she wants to destroy other people’s futures by forcibly disarming them in the face of violent criminal threats.

No, one person does not a movement make, but if you spend any time at all reading the weblogs, articles, and Twitter feeds of those who support "gun control", you will find Joan’s methods and mentalities, such as they are, echoed across the spectrum.

muggerself-defenseOh, sure, she and her fellow cultists can convince themselves that they are actually Doing Something by supporting "gun control" and occasionally getting one of their pet bills turned into law, but we all know the underlying flaw in "gun control" is that it simply does not work, and I am willing to wager good odds that the cultists know that as well (whether they are willing to admit it is another matter entirely). And so nothing changes – criminals go on preying on the law-abiding because self-defense has been demonized and marginalized by anti-rights cultists, "gun control" supporting victims never recover from being victims, and they keep pushing the same tried-and-failed methodologies as if "do it again, only harder" was a valid tactic.

On the other hand, pro-rights activists and advocates are all about Doing and making our futures – making our futures safer, making our futures better, making our futures at all. We firmly believe in taking demonstrably effective steps for ensuring our own safety and longevity – planning for potentially disastrous events (because if you are ready for the Zombie Apocalypse, some pissant hurricane is nothing), being observant of ourselves and our surroundings (because criminals exploit ‘condition white’), preparing ourselves for emergencies (something tells me the percentage of CPR-certified gunbloggers is higher than CPR-certified "gun control" extremists…), and so forth. And we firmly believe in providing the necessary tools – or at least ensuring they are available – to people to accomplish those goals, whether those tools are a little self-esteem boost, a helping hand, some training, a welcoming attitude, a safe environment, or a firearm.

And not only are we pro-rights activists scouting ahead every day, formulating new techniques, developing new arguments, discovering new ways of spreading the truth, we are more than willing to share that knowledge with anyone who is interested in listening… as A Girl and Her Gun discovered herself and can attest to.

predatormercyselfdefenseHowever, one important distinction sets us so far ahead of the "gun control" extremists that it is not even funny – we would never force someone to abide by our desires, our plans, or our intentions. We will certainly encourage people to consider things that actually work, but if they want to do something else entirely, then more power to them, and the best of luck with that. Why do anti-rights cultists have such a hard time letting other people live in peace?

It is too early to definitively state that we will all, one day, be living in a future wherein all of our individual rights – including that of self-defense – are acknowledged and respected by our government and our fellow men (too early indeed, given the current political tendencies of America), but that future will never be realized unless we, ourselves, work towards it.

So while the "gun control" extremists are ringing their bells or lighting their candles or doing whatever else it is they do in order to make themselves feel better about being victims or knowing victims or thinking they are victims, we will be encouraging potential victims and past victims to learn how to defend themselves, giving them the tools to do so, learning from their stories rather than bemoaning them, coming to terms with their experiences rather than endlessly reliving them, and educating them to be survivors… and we are everywhere.

Who do you really think is going to have a bigger impact on the future?

(* – When I say "self-inflicted", I refer exclusively to Joan’s daily decision to be nothing more than a "gun violence" victim-in-her-own-mind, not to her sister’s murder.) 

(All images courtesy of Oleg Volk.) 

6 comments to make your own future

  • we would never force someone to abide by our desires, our plans, or our intentions

    Yet they are so unwaveringly fixated on forcing others to do what they want that they constantly accuse us of trying to make everybody carry guns everywhere, all the time

    Yet another illustration of their propensity to project.

  • vick

    On the one hand I agree with you that Joan is stuck on “Victim”. On the other hand, I’m not sure that it is a voluntary choice for her – I was reading a blog just the other day talking about genetic predisposition to PTSD, and how you could explain most drug addicts as people self-medicating for depression.

    If losing a sister can be a traumatic event, and if she is predisposed to PTSD, then she has no voluntary control over her emotions – she is mentally ill, and not likely to get better any time soon.

    If that is the case, then no argument, reason, passionate discussion, or calm deliberation will ever change her mind – she exists in a permanent state of fear and anxiety, and cannot calm down (without medication) to the point where reason can penetrate. She fears, and sounds the alarm, and when the adults in the room tell here that there is no monster under the bed, she fears even more, because she KNOWS that there is a monster – it killed her sister – and she screams the alarm even louder. In a sense, she is right – there are monsters among us, and given her trauma, she has reached a rational (although simplistic) conclusion – guns=bad! She sees the tool and equates it with the monster.

    She may have my sympathy, but she does not have my agreement or support. However, attributing any form of voluntary choice or rationality to the opinions she has formed is probably a mistake. Treat her like a frightened child, if you want to have any hope of success.

  • I lost a sister also. 7 years ago. Younger, loved and missed.
    I moved on but will not forget her.
    Nor will I dwell on it because I will see her again..The same monster that killed her grabbed my wife, but we won that battle..
    Life is loss and you move on. Some can deal with it,some cannot.
    Some have a need to find something, anything to lash out at.
    Joan did and is.

    Now Fallen Angels is in my eReader que.Have read a number of Baen.
    Need to get to it and read it..

  • Just to pick a point of illumination: “Belief” is considered to be more accurate than “facts” – and *cough* I believe that this (^) is entirely a rhetorical device activated by The Left, and illustrates one of the many points of intrusion made into their takeover of the Language, as a means to separate “thinking”(facts – literally with scare-quotes) and *believing*(faith and magic-sparkles), and used to elevate the latter over the former.
    Also (aside), in the circular firing-squad of a Leftist/Marxist criticism/self-criticism session, belief in something can be unshakeable, whereas merely “thinking” something is mutable and changeable -and thoughts in such a session WILL be attacked – and during the breakdown-indoctrination-admission cycle, “thinking* incorrect thoughts goes away and via the Leftosphere chrysalis, and the subject re-emerges ~*believing*~ in #NEWTHINGS#… It’s a type of psychological stress-magick!

  • @ John Hardin: It should probably come as no surprise that that accusation never made a whole lot of sense to me. Oh, sure, people joke around about what the rammifications of all people carrying firearms at all times might be, but the are just that – jokes, and thought experiments. I cannot think of a single pro-rights advocate I have encountered who would seriously force another person to carry a firearm against their will.

    @ vick: To begin with, I should clarify – I held Joan up as an example, not as a future project. Believe me, I have already given up on her, primarily because of her eponymous Syndrome. Even looking past the woman’s ability to get over her sister’s death, she simply cannot grasp logic, mathematics, or really any higher-level thought to speak of.

    However, I had not heard / read about the genetic predisposition to PTSD you are referencing… I suppose it makes sense – some people get really scared about things that simply do not bother other people – but I had not heard about it.

    Still, predisposition or not, as you say, it simply does not excuse her slavish desire to see you and me and everyone else disarmed to satiate her own fears, insecurities, and paranoias. It unquestionably sucks that her sister is dead, and I am very sorry she had to through that, but my sympathy evaporates in an instant when she wants to force people to have no choice but to become like her.

    @ maddmedic: Very sorry to hear about your sister… I take it the scumbag responsible will not be doing such things ever again?

    We all need something to blame, something to say “X happened because of Y”. But I have shot no one. I have threatened no one. I have never so much as drawn my firearm in anger. Targeting me (and the millions upon millions like me) is simply ludicrous.

    I think you will enjoy the book, though ;).

    @ DirtCrashr: See, that is why I went into engineering rather than humanities… stupid-assed gos-se like that would give me the mother of all headaches, and I would either laugh uproriously at anyone trying to teach it to me, or just walk out.

    That said, you pretty much nailed the theme of the book on the head ;).

  • […] who stand up for the individual do not need to use the threat of government force to coerce people to abide by our beliefs, because we accept anyone with open […]