I have asked myself many times, what is the real purpose behind proposals and stories in the news. What is the true purpose of the ideas suggested and what will be the outcome of proposed laws if/when enacted? What will be the lasting effects over the length of my life and my children’s’ lives and so forth.
I follow the, “we shall see” approach more and more because their are always unintended consequences to every great thing we do. Consequences that don’t always raise their heads until sometime years down the road. I am unaware of any instances of perfect evil or perfect goodness existing in my lifetime. All things come with shades of good and shades of bad. When we hurt, we think it is bad and when we feel joy we think it is good but our feelings often lie to us. Crack cocaine brings feelings of goodness to those who use it and yet it destroys their lives. Eating healthy and exercising often bring feelings of pain or seem distasteful and yet those who do both often live longer healthier lives.
Gun bans and an end to violence seem like noble causes and bring with them feelings of joy and goodness. The problem that arises from disarming citizens of their defensive measures is that like any small defenseless creature in nature you become a food supply for those who are stronger. You can scale the example of the sheep in the pasture being eaten by the pack of wolves, to citizens without weapons being slaughtered by their own government or the government/military of invading forces.
What does Gun Ownership offer to those who accept it? It mostly offers responsibility, the owner must maintain the weapon and the ammo for it to maintain it’s effectiveness. The owners must train to use it safely and must keep it secure to avoid it being used against them. The owner must decide when is the proper time to use it and what is the proper way to use it. It requires the owner to engage in a whole list of moral and survival thought processes. It requires the wielder of the weapon to engage in actual decision making regarding the future existence of themselves and those around them. It sometimes offers the burden of living with those choices for the rest of your life.
With all this responsibility some people choose not to own a gun because they cannot handle the stresses that come with making tuff choices. Some would rather hide deep in the flock and hope the wolves don’t eat them. Some would rather sacrifice their fellow sheep and offspring to the wolves rather than be burdened with the responsibility of making tuff choices. After living a life of being told what to do and how to think some sheep are so highly indoctrinated they nolonger have the ability to make choices.
Is gun ownership/personal protection only negative and stressful? No, I don’t think so because the people who do choose to own guns provide a deterring force to keep the wolves away from the sheep who are incapable of that responsibility. This safety net that is created allows for more freedoms and creativity among all in the flock. Checks and balances are a necessary mechanism in all aspects of nature. Without the sheepdogs the flock would surely be consumed by the wolves and the wolves would eventually die from starvation also. But even with the sheepdog someday the sheep will be eaten by the shepherd who tends to the flock and guides them through their lives.
What would happen if all the sheep were capable of handling the responsibility of wielding a gun and providing their own personal protection. The wolves would probably starve or at least have to find a different source of food, the sheepdog would become unemployed or maybe retire and the shepherd would most likely be run out of town for killing the sheep. The flock would be liberated and be able to choose to do as it wished. So the whole balance of nature as it currently exist would be thrown out of kilter. The sheep would no longer be just a food source to be consumed by those who govern and attack them. the flock would probably attain a higher level of conscious because the boundaries of the flock would nolonger be limited by what the shepherd dictates. It may even create a new world order of its own choosing. Some chaos would surely ensue for some period of time until the new boundaries of their world were learned and standards were set.
Ownership of personal protection creates a huge threat to those who rule over the flock. It makes it tuff if not impossible to dictate to the masses. It also makes it tuff to eat the flock when the wolves get hungry. When the sheep are afforded independence, freedom and liberty they most likely will start to question why they have toiled their whole lives so that the shepherd, the sheepdog and the wolves can eat them and wear their fur. The sheep may decide they no longer want to support the shepherd in his quest to invade and conquer other flocks. The real dangers of personal protection is the possibility of true freedom, the the possibility that someday the sheep may become enlightened! The real danger is a shift in the current paradigm and the loss of authority by the shepherd.