In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
The Horrible Logic of (Youth) Victim Disarmament
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
The Horrible Logic of (Youth) Victim Disarmament by George Justin Mallone There probably is no surer way to incite the passion of those who would bind us all by law to the range of actions allowed to the dullest retard (for "our own good" naturally), then to merely mention the words "kids" and "guns" positively in the same ... paragraph. For this reason, among others, I will endeavor to do this as many times as is possible in the following piece, in which I will address the eternally hot potato of kids and guns. However, I will endeavor to approach the issue of kids and guns from a somewhat different angle. Surely, the readers of this site are well-informed and savvy enough to look up the facts: Handgun Control Inc. skews the statistics and includes the deaths of 19-year old "gangstas" among it's "itty-bitty wittle kids killed by guns" statistics; that the youth that "snap" and proceed to make swiss cheese of their friend's heads tend to be forcibly drugged up (legal kinds) and forced in statist indoctrination centers (which tend to be a favorite target for rampages, GO FIGURE); and that, as a general rule, anything that is used in the media for liberty-restricting purposes is complete and utter *.This you all know though. So what is my angle? Why, the moral argument, of course!The argument that states that not only do youth (and any living being for that matter) have a basic and fundamental right to self-defense, but that if you oppose this right or attempt to impede it in any way, you sanction a very evil notion: that the right to life of youth is worth less then the right to life of older individuals.A personal example, for instance, is that thanks to the glorious Governor of my unfortunately very aptly-named Empire State of New York, my right to my own life, and all the associated rights (namely, in this case, self-defense) is apparently worth less then the right to life of a 21-year old (I am 19).Why is this the case? Because, in the wake of the "rash" (more media hype) of school shootings, all people under the age of 21 in the Great State of New York were deemed incompetent to use handguns. Ah, the logic of politics. One maniac goes on a shooting spree, and suddenly entire age-ranges of people are made intellectually and morally inferior to those older then them. Another egregious example currently being floated (thank you keepandbeararms.com) is this piece of tripe; a "Child Access Prevention" bill which would make it a crime "to store or leave a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a minor" in the state of Missouri. One can imagine what the Bradyites would like to do to those who dare teach their children how to actually use one! There are, as I indicated before, more then mere initiation of force issues here with regards to young people (or people in general) being armed, however; that is to say that what's evil for the state to do, in this instance, is evil for the individual.For instance, a personal dislike of guns (for whatever reason) is not, morally, a reason to bar them from being in the possession of one's children, at least in a free society (there are obvious legal quandries one would get into letting one's child own a gun in much of the United States). But the fundamental point is, if your child is competent at using weapons, and you have no serious reason to believe they're going to go around shooting up innocents, it shows a morally egregious disrespect for their life and liberty to not allow them to carry. That brilliant and insightful anarchist Wendy McElroy has asked if she must use a gun to be moral. I'd say no, but if she were to have kids, and deny *them* the right to use guns, I'd have a problem.For unless one values one's conclusion that "guns are icky and dangerous" over the right to life of one's own flesh and blood, one cannot make a serious argument that a personal dislike of firearms is a valid moral basis for denying one's children the ability to carry them.I am not arguing against the "legal" (or whatever the preferred anarchist term would be) right of not allowing guns in your home. People should be able to dictate what is allowable in their own home (presuming all parties are there of their own free will, an important distinction to be made, especially in the context of parent-child relationships). But, technically, you'd have the "legal" right to deny your rape-victim spouse the right to pack in your house and car, presuming you own them. However, that would make you an example of something described by another one of those colorful curse words I like to refrain from using in my text; starts with A. http://anti-state.com/mallone/mallone1.html