New York Times Ignores Bloody Reality

Some bravely anonymous columnist at the New York Times recently lamented the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Chicago handgun ban in a piece titled, “Court Ignores Bloody Reality.”

To begin, Mr. Fearful of Retaliation from Those Bad Anti-Government Types characterizes as “flawed logic” the rationale by the five affirming judges that a militia is a group of common people banding together for purposes of mutual defense. What else is it or can it be? A government entity? Get real.

Further, he wants readers to quail at the hobgoblin of gun violence by stating that inthe Windy City in 2009, 258 public school students were shot last year – 32 died. While this is unquestionably a tragedy, it is really a more potent case against government schools and the atmosphere of bullying, clanship, and animosity they inherently produce. The writer totally ignores studies such as John R. Lott, Jr.’s “More Guns, Less Crime” – demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that gun ownership deters criminals, and stops as many as 2,000,000 crimes from being committed in America each year, often without any shots fired. Indeed, in every unbiased study by any group – ranging the full gamut of the political spectrum – statistics bear Lott’s research out.

Yet, angrily and most arrogantly, the writer states that “Mayors and state lawmakers will have to … keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws – to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials.”

Ah, yes: Those wearing government costumes and receiving government paychecks (stolen tax revenues) are always superior to the dumb unskilled peasantry, aren’t they? Especially since every court ruling in America at every level of the State-monopolized dispute resolution system have concluded that the police – and other government entities – are under no obligation to protect you or I. But you’d better damned well pay those taxes, chump…or we’ll shoot you. That’s our version of protection.

This deluded individual also claims that, in response to gun rights groups, “Officials will have to press back even harder.” Oh, the noble bureaucrat, only striving to do what’s moral, just, and true – pitted against the evil of those whose wish is to be independent, sovereign, and in control of his or her own life and property. Such people make the editorialist in question grind his teeth and pull out his hair in rage and frustration. How dare they protect themselves! How dare they not go along with the will of politicians and bureaucrats! The court is ignoring bloody reality!

And what else is new, mate? The court always ignores reality – like all government – by virtue of the fact that it even exists. No group self-appointed authoritarians has any legitimate right to dictate edicts that in any way effect your person or property, or mine; your liberty or mine. Lysander Spooner talked all about it way back in 1850 in his essay “The Constitution of No Authority.” I could care less what the Second Amendment says or doesn’t say, in the end. Natural law always trumps artificial, meaningless government “law” every time. I exist, and that automatically means I have every right to defend myself and my property with whatever weapons I choose. End of story.

So take that and get lost, Mr. Scared Anonymous – and while your’e at it, take the arrogant, worthless government you revere and identify with so much right along with you. No thinking man has any use for it.

Free Markets & Capitalism?
Markets Not Capitalism
Organization Theory
Conscience of an Anarchist