26Dec06

Vigilante?

In the 19th Century, groups of men were known to assemble for the purpose o f performing summary justice, at least as they saw it. They called themselve s "vigilantes." That term is used today, incorrectly, by liberal politicians, bureaucrats, the liberal media, and Hollywood Marxists to desc ribe nearly any unilateral action taken by crime-weary citizens to protect themselves f rom VCAs. Any citizen who, for example, decides to purchase a firearm is immediately denigrated and censored for contemplating "vigilantism " and "taking the law into his own hands." All this criticism, of course, from t he mouths of wealthy snobs who privately employ armies of armed bodyguards, or have thei r well-armed bodyguards graciously provided at the expense of impoverished taxpayers.

In the words of St Aubyn, "The political Left, in naive denial of hi story's harsh realities, supposes they have only to roll over on their backs like puppies, dangling their paws engagingly in the air, to fend off attack. =9D Interesting, the very politicians who espouse this drivel and insist that we agree with them, are simultaneously unwilling to test the theory on themselves! If unilateral disarmament were such a good idea, would one not expect them to volunteer to be first?

"Taking the law into your own hands?" The law IS in our han ds. Always has been. "Law enforcement" is not something citizens seize fro m police officers. It is a societal function that citizens delegate to civil police . In doing so, we do not abdicate our own sovereignty nor our duties as citizens . When police we collectively hire are either unwilling or unable to perform that function at the critical moment, there is no law or standard that says we cannot perform it for ourselves. Indeed, when personally threatened, we wi ll likely have no choice!

Logic is such a cruel critic!

/John