Consent of the Governed

Mary, Mary; Quite Contrary

WHY DOES YOUR CRIME-RATE GROW?

Mark Steyn does in the British Gun-Control/Radio Poll story:

"A "listeners' law" is, of course, a pathetic gimmick. Judging from the reaction of Stephen Pound, MP, the modish proponents of "direct democracy" believe in letting the people's voice be heard only so long as it agrees with what their betters have already decided. So, having agreed to introduce the listeners' choice as a Bill in Parliament, Mr. Pound was a bit shocked to find the winning proposal wasn't one of the nanny-state suggestions (a ban on smoking, compulsory organ donation, mandatory voting) or the snobby joke ones (a ban on Christmas decorations before December), but the right to defend your home."

"Why, the People's Champion himself, Stephen Pound, dismissed it as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation. I can't remember who it was who said, `The people have spoken, the bastards'."

"That would be Dick Tuck, a long-ago California state senate candidate, in an unusually pithy concession speech. It's an amusing remark as applied to the electorate's rejection of oneself. It's not quite so funny when applied, by Mr. Pound, to people impertinent enough to bring up a topic that you and the rest of the governing class have decided is beyond debate. As used by Mr. Tuck, it reflects a rough'n'tumble vernacular politics; as used by Mr Pound, it comes out closer to "Let 'em eat cake"."

"The Independent's Joan Smith recalled that, when she spied a burglar on her porch, she had no desire to "blow him away". Nor do I, if I'm honest."

"But I do want to have the right to make the judgment call. You can call 999, get the answering machine rerouting you to the 24-Hour Action Hotline three counties away, leave a message, and wait for the Community Liaison Officer to get back next week if he's returned from his emotional trauma leave by then."

"...you're there, the police aren't. And, even in jurisdictions whose constabularies aren't quite so monumentally useless as Britain's, a citizen in his own home should have the right to make his own assessment of the danger without being second-guessed by fellows who aren't on the scene."

"And, once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to exercise it. Take Miss Smith's situation: she's at home, but the burglar still comes a-knocking. Thanks to burglar alarms, British criminals have figured out that it's easier to wait till you come home, ring the door bell, and punch you in the kisser."

Most gun-control is not crime-control, but citizen-control. And goes hand-in-hand with the abolition of the Death Penalty. In response to a brutal shotgun-slaying of 3 policemen 40 years ago, the liberal answer was to abolish the Death Penalty, and to register, and later ban, most gun-ownership.

If the State says to criminals "There is NOTHING you can do that is vicious enough for us to execute you!", even after a long & deliberative process, then it certainly isn't going to let individual victims make that determination on the spot. Though you'd never know it, many European publics support the Death penalty.

The English jurist Blackstone, who is to Law what Edison is to electronics, asserted the right to armed self-defense is an 'Absolute Right'; one that pre-dates & supersedes even Constitutions & societies. So when Steyn says "... once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to exercise it.", he is quite right on the deterrence point...but the State cannot 'give' you that right; it can only honor or dishonor the right previously given by one's Maker.

British gun-control cannot be looked at apart from several other bad liberal ideas; the disparagement of traditional morality and the introduction of massive numbers of third-world immigrants, a certain number of whom have no loyalty or respect for British culture. And elites have never appreciated Thomas Jefferson's formulation: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Or perhaps they've appreciated it all too well.

Steyn points out one more unintended consequence; criminals now wait for victims to arrive home and turn off their burglar-alarms; can burglar-alarm-control be far behind?

As for the alleged slaughter that would take place; was there a slaughter when the people were allowed to defend their homes years ago? Did I miss this scene from "Mary Poppins"?:

Winifred Banks: "George; what ARE you doing?"
George W. Banks: "Hello, dear; I'm going to shoot a burglar...it's the English way, you know."
Winifred: "But that's no burglar, darling; that's Bert---our chimney sweep!"
George: "One can't be to careful these days, dear,"...BLAM! BLAM!..."Sorry, Bert, but I haven't shot anyone for King & Country all day. Chin up...way to keep a stiff upper lip, old boy!"
Tony State: "I'm afraid you're under arrest for the murder of Rob Petrie, Mr. Banks."
Mary Tyler Moore: "Oh, Rob!"
George Banks: "Who are you, sir...and where is Mary Poppins?"
Tony State: " I'm your new Nanny...Nanny State. Your wife elected me when she got the vote. And Mary is fine. She fought off two purse-snatchers in the park with her umbrella; she should be released soon...it's her first offense, after all."
Mr. Banks: "Oh, thank Heavens; for a brief, terrifying moment, I feared she was in the waiting room at National Health."

Instead of criminals living in fear, the Elites seem fear only one thing:

Super-Callous-Fragile-Victims-Expediting-Justice.

Can pun-control be far behind?

Posted by Noel at January 7, 2004 02:18 AM