Snapping Dogs and Liberal Logic
The attack began without warning last Sunday. Two dogs came over the grassy hill from the center of the campus. When the noise grew loud, a large third dog came from the nearby neighborhood to join the fun. Snarling, snapping, biting, they circled the 82-year old walker and went for his legs.
Harold had just returned from walking across northern Spain on the Camino del Santiago, a 300 mile trek that involved walking seven to twelve miles a day for weeks on end. To continue walking while avoiingd the dangers of traffic, he chose the local community college campus and walked the perimeter road.
Until the dogs came.
The attack lasted twenty minutes, and Harold had brought nothing to defend himself on this walk around a college campus but his hiking boots. A middle-aged couple watched from their car a short distance off, then drove away without helping. Harold blew a shrill whistle to call for help, and later the campus policeman said he had heard it and wondered what it was. Three calls to an incompetent 911 dispatcher produced no help. The attack went on. Occasionally the dogs would pull back to rest, then launch in again.
Our liberal friends have the obvious answer. If only there were additional leash laws, those dogs would never have been out. Should this slender elderly man have carried a handgun? Of course not; why would a person ever need a gun? Just call for help, and -- did you know? -- you can hold your car keys between your knuckles and scratch their faces. And, by the way, no protective guns should be allowed anywhere near a school. For goodness' sake, children might be there!
Do we already have leash laws on the books? Of course. We just need one more, and as soon as we put more fences around all the law-abiding dogs that were not involved in the attack, everything will be fine.
Liberal logic does not acknowledge the realities of human behavior, such as the obvious fact that criminals do not care about firearms laws. Unintended consequences abound. For example, the publishing of the addresses of gun owners in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy has no doubt been greeted with delight by criminals. Apparently it was meant to shame gun owners, but the result is that thieves now know which homes are defenseless, and which homes have firearms to be stolen. Why was this so hard to predict? The obvious answer is that it did not matter to the arrogant, self-righteous liberal mind, which only focuses on imposing its moral standards on everyone in sight.
Do we already have gun laws on the books? Of course. We just need a few more, and as soon as we further restrict the millions of law-abiding citizens who have not committed crimes, these crimes will stop. And, by the way, no protective guns should be allowed anywhere near a school. Think of the children!
The right to self-defense was not given to us by the Second Amendment. Our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not given to us by the Declaration of Independence. These documents simply acknowledge and reaffirm rights we already had as human beings, not just as Americans.
Unless we accept liberal logic, which insists that the greater good requires that no one except the state should own weapons. In fact, in every area of your life the state knows how you should live and behave better than you do.
The result? Light bulbs that require a HAZMAT team to clean up when they break, corn squeezings in our gasoline that gunk up our engines, toilets that won't flush, and economic damage based on mythical global warming that has not actually happened for almost two decades. But never mind, you can't be trusted to manage your own life, and especially not to use dangerous things like guns.
The federal government is not allowed to infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms. This was a condition of the formation of the United States. Without this assurance, there would be no federal government. All the nonsense about controlling firearms under the interstate commerce clause is pure fabrication, and flatly illegal; "shall not be infringed" is patently clear.
If the Constitution no longer matters, then the federal government no longer exists. The same document that restricts them is also the document that created them and gives them their authority. Either it is in effect, or it is not.
Harold survived the attack, and fortunately there has been no incidence of rabies in the area for 50 years. What if one of the dogs had managed to pull him off his feet, giving the other attackers access to his face, neck, and abdomen? It certainly would not have been the dogs' fault; they had obviously been treated badly in their puppyhood, and must have been deprived of benefits other dogs have enjoyed. Better redistribution of puppy chow was needed. It's not their fault.
The liberal answer? Harold should simply not have been there. It's his fault. Why would anyone need to go walking around the college campus on a Sunday afternoon, anyway? And as far as the possibility of his carrying a gun when he goes out walking, we'll take care of that with our upcoming legislation. Why would anyone ever need a gun?