This piece simply reinforces my hypothesis that we are creatures of our upbringing and life experiences in our formative years of childhood. There are always exceptions, but on the whole people who are raised in the traditional (God designed) family with one mother and one father, and are taught God's laws of prosperity (ie. work for your living, and if a man won't work, neither should he eat, and a man who fails to take care of his household is worse than an infidel, etc) these are the foundation of a successful and peaceful society. Listening to the potty mouthed mother of Michael Brown, it is no wonder he grew up to be a punk and is dead at 18.
The sissy boy who wrote this piece pretty much detailed his own upbringing which was one of privilege, wealth, and laziness. Admitting he had never even seen a gun until he was robbed tells you that he had a sissy upbringing and his thought pattern and perception of the real world mimics that of his parents, most likely extreme liberal democrats who believe in the nanny state. His reference to the police "protecting" his neighborhood against the under privileged class that live in squalor reminded me of the words of
Jeffrey R. Snyder in his classic 1993 piece entitled A NATION OF COWARDS . . .
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong � since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so � but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you? . . . Should you read English literature from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, you will discover numerous references to the fact that a gentleman, especially when out at night or traveling, armed himself with a sword or a pistol against the chance of encountering a highwayman or other such predator. This does not appear to have shocked the ladies accompanying him. True, for the most part there were no police in those days, but we have already addressed the notion that the presence of the police absolves people of the responsibility to look after their safety, and in any event the existence of the police cannot be said to have reduced crime to negligible levels.While these liberal do-gooders have the right to walk about unprotected and relying on others to preserve their lives, they don't stop there. They want to take away your right to protect yourself and your loved ones too, because they are so much smarter and civilized than you, toting about your guns and your Bible. Again, Snyder hits the nail squarely on the head when he writes . . .
"It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding � because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers � certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counter violence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly."My own upbringing was in a Christian and politically conservative family. My dad taught us work ethic, personal responsibility, and how to safely handle firearms. I never felt personally threatened growing up in Oklahoma City in the 50s and 60s, and didn't buy and carry a handgun until 1987 when I lived in Florida. I taught my own three children the same principles that I learned and today all three carry a handgun for personal protection (my daughter a .38 S&W snubbie in her purse and both boys 1911 .45ACPs.)
