Sunday, December 10, 2006

Mayor Daley, Chicago Anti-Gun Culture Responsible For Shooting Deaths At Highrise Office?

The Enemy Press AP reports on out of Portland Oregon about an apparently angry man who stormed a patent lawyers office and gunned down three employees of the firm.

"Joe Jackson forced a security guard (unarmed?) at gunpoint to take him up to the 38th floor offices of Wood, Phillips, Katz, Clark & Mortimer, which specialized in intellectual property and patents. He carried a revolver, knife and hammer in a large manila envelope and chained the office doors behind him, police said. Jackson, 59, told witnesses before he was shot that he had been cheated over a toilet he had invented for use in trucks, Police Superintendent Phil Cline said Saturday." The hostage drama ended when SWAT teams killed Jackson.

The SWAT team, the last resort of a desperate city. Armed with military weapons, armor, and using commando tactics, snipers took out the raving citizen. The city was saved, three lives were lost. How many more would have been at risk if the police hadn't taken Jackson out? How many indeed.

How many would have been killed if the unfortunate denizens of Chicago were allowed to protect themselves? Thanks to the likes of Mayor Daley and the rest of the Chicago government - in fact the whole state of Illinois - if you are unwilling to break the law and arm yourself, you take your lives in your hands by merely being in that benighted area. If the citizens of the city were able to legally possess handguns, Jackson might have been stopped before killing anyone. There's really no way to know if an armed security guard would have stopped Jackson, but if a number of people in the building were carrying, surely one with concern for the welfare of fellow citizens might have ended Jackson's rampage earlier. The concerned citizen is the best defense against evildoers.

The thought that someone might be able to thwart his plans could have dissuaded Jackson from carrying out his murder spree. It's puzzling that those in power can't seem to grasp the simple fact that an armed citizenry is the best deterrent to those who refuse to behave lawfully. Of course considering the shameful behavior of many of America's so-called leaders, perhaps they do understand the power of the armed citizen, and react accordingly by attempting to restrict the free persons right to self defense. Guilty consciences may be the impetus for many of the laws passed to ban gun ownership throughout the last century. They'll never tell, and we'll never know.

Do those in power then, have the moral responsibility to allow citizens to defend themselves? If they refuse, or actively block the constitutional right to bear arms, are they in any way guilty of aiding and abetting the crimes perpetrated by criminals? The logical answer is yes on both questions. How can someone with any love of humanity refuse to be held accountable for failing to protect the life and property of those people under his or her area of authority, and then after declaring themselves unable to protect individual citizens, begin prosecution of those citizens willing to defend themselves from social predators by use of firearms?

The truth is that they cannot. At least, they cannot if they wish to maintain their moral standing. Of course, those with political or social power who seek to restrict your right to defend yourself make it well known that they believe themselves to have the rights they would deny to you. Many times politicians and celebrities who demand gun control are exposed as hypocrites who either carry themselves or are surrounded by armed bodyguards.

Such illuminating points shouldn't be lost on the general public. Ask yourself: Is my worth to society less than a mere reciter of lines? Does a pretty face merit more protection from criminal elements than a less attractive one? Are my children less deserving of having parents than the demagogue? If your answer is no, then you just might be ready to assert your constitutional right to defend yourself.

Tagged As: