Disarm the Police
Gary North at LewRockwell.com - Disarm the Police - in a free society, the police would be disarmed and the universally armed public would provide any force necessary to apprehend criminals. It worked in England until they started disarming the public. I like it. [smith2004]
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution asserts the right -- the legal immunity from interference by the State -- of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This means a rifle strapped to my back and a pistol or two strapped to my hip, day or night.
It doesn't go far enough. It leaves guns in the hands of a subculture that has proven itself too irresponsible to carry them: the police.
If I were called upon to write the constitution for a free country, meaning a country no larger than Iowa, I would require every citizen to be armed, except members of the police. A policeman would have to apply for an on-duty gun permit. He would not be allowed to carry a gun on duty, just like England's bobbies are not allowed to carry them.
Every child, male and female, beginning no later than age six, would be trained by parents regarding the moral responsibility of every armed citizen to come to the aid of any policeman in trouble. Unarmed people deserve protection.
...
Unarmed police, now fully deserving of protection by gun-bearing citizens, would gain immense respect. They would rule by the force of law, meaning respect for the law, meaning widespread voluntary submission by the citizenry. This is properly called self-government under lawful authority. The policeman's word would be law. He just wouldn't be armed.
A criminal would not escape from the scene of the crime by shooting the cop on the beat. He would not get 20 yards from the cop's body.
Citizens would regard a law enforcement officer as they regard their mothers. They would do what they were told with little more than rolling their eyes. If anyone physically challenged a police officer, he would risk facing a dozen Clint Eastwoods who have been waiting for two decades to get an opportunity to make their day.
Vin Suprynowicz at The Las Vegas Review-Journal - We don't write the laws, we just enforce 'em - Vin explains the difference between facism and libertarianism to a clueless reader.
In the colloquial sense, fascism is generally identified with the trappings of central control which became familiar from the German and Italian newsreels of the eras 1924-1944 -- men in black uniforms, police officers breaking down doors and hauling people away in the middle of the night for things that hadn't even been "crimes" a few years before.
In the 1930s, that could be adhering to the Jewish faith; reading the wrong books; owning weapons without proper government permits ...
These days it's using the wrong drugs; selling books that explain why participating in payroll "withholdings" is fully voluntary; owning weapons without the proper government permits ...
At the opposite end of the spectrum we find a small group of folks who want smaller and less intrusive government, much lower taxes (or a complete reliance on voluntary fee-for-service), and a lot more liberty for individuals. We're generally called "libertarians." We believe that -- so long as you're not cheating or physically harming others -- people should be able to buy heroin and machine guns over the counter at Home Depot, without showing any government ID. No men in uniforms breaking down anyone's doors at night.
Kim du Toit - Gratuitous Gun Pic: CZ Mod 527 (7.62x39mm) - CZ offers a bolt action, detachable 5-round magazine, rifle in the commie military caliber, which has ballistics very similar to the .30-30. Practice ammo is way cheaper (less than ten cents a round if you buy a thousand at a time). That makes this an ideal Bambi-whacker. [kimdutoit]