Individualism and Self Defense

There are present in America today a very large number of citizens who believe protection of themselves and their loved ones from violent physical attack, robbery, rape and general mayhem is the sole responsibility of others. Most of these ignorant folks believe that employees of the state should be responsible for protection of the individual in our society. This view is elitist and based on false assumptions.

Depending on others for personal protection masks the belief by many that they are of a higher station in life; that those of a lower social level and therefore inferior in stature and value should be responsible for their personal protection. They believe their lives and property to be more important than the lives of members of law enforcement and the military.

Many are unaware that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the police have no obligation to protect the individual in society. The court ruled as late as June 27th 2005, in Castle Rock v Gonzales, that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection for herself, or her children, even though she had obtained a restraining order against her husband Simon. Simon Gonzales subsequently abducted their three children, murdered them, and was killed by police after shooting into the police station window. Ms. Gonzales called the police after the children were abducted, but, the police, believing Simon Gonzales to be non-violent, did nothing. Perhaps, had the police enforced the restraining order, the children would be alive today?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled the police have no obligation to defend the individual. Beginning with South V. Maryland in 1856 and several subsequent rulings on the subject, the court has ruled, "…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Emphasis added. Yet, the state and its myriad civilian supporters persist in the belief the individual in society should be disarmed, stating the police are there, should anyone need protection.

Today’s economic problems have revealed the true purpose of most law enforcement personnel in our country: revenue collection. Apprehending killers, rapists and robbers does not contribute to the coffers of law enforcement and their governing bodies; they are, in fact, costly to the agency involved. Unconstitutional law enforcement checkpoints, where a great majority of DUI citations, license, registration, and insurance violations are issued, are vital to the state in the collection of revenue. In today’s economic times, many departments have detailed officers from personal crime assignments to activities that are revenue producing. This takes the law enforcement emphasis away from protecting citizens. To the police, manning checkpoints or speed traps is much more important than answering a prowler call or a call concerning a restraining order’s enforcement.

The court has ruled that any "protection" provided by law enforcement will be of a collective nature rather than an individual one. Therefore, as individuals, we must come to grips with the reality of protecting our loved ones, and ourselves, with little to no dependence on those in law enforcement. For that reason, we must never allow the state to remove from our possession the tools required for that critical task.

Even on the collective level, law enforcement has proved to be relatively ineffectual in protecting those who pay their salaries. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Rader and Coral Eugene Watts managed to take the lives of at least 177 innocent people without ever firing a shot. The police were only able to investigate after the fact in these cases. I’m sure that was of little consolation whatsoever to the victims, or their families.

So ineffectual are the members of law enforcement and the military, they have repeatedly been unable to protect those whose lives are in their hands 24 hours a day. John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar al-Sadat and many others in history are proof positive the state cannot protect those they are tasked with protecting.

Depending on the military for personal protection would definitely be a misplaced trust. Need I say more than 9/11? Billions and billions for defense of the country and, according to the questionable government account of what was basically an act of mass murder, 19 men with box cutters brought down the icons of the American financial network and the headquarters of the U.S. Military, killing thousands in the process. All this was accomplished at the reported cost of a few hundred thousand dollars.

Rumors abound concerning the military being used by the state to seize firearms and control American citizens should there be civil unrest or natural disaster. The actions of the National Guard in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans are certainly indicative of what we can expect from the military as relates to personal protection. If anyone still maintains any doubt the military will be deployed to American streets in the event of civil unrest or national emergency, check this out.

The military has morphed from the "protection of our country" paradigm to one of the enforcement arm for the state. In fact, the military has failed miserably in abiding by its prime directive: "upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic." Arguably, the military has become the tool of the Constitution’s domestic enemies.

Effective personal protection can only be obtained through the efforts of the individual. Private firearms ownership, proper training, perfect practice, and the mindset to use them all are vital. To believe otherwise is elitist, ignorant of reality, and could eventually prove fatal.