 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recently had to endure my annual exercise in ritual humiliation. Before I even entered the local sheriff's office, I felt myself tensing up and growing more and more angry. I promised myself not to take out my disgust on the female clerk who merely carried out the onerous policies dictated by her boss.
While I endeavored to remain polite, I still could not suppress my feelings. The flat tones of my voice and my unsmiling face betrayed the true nature of my constrained emotions. I imagined that the woman was used to the unhappy supplicants who appeared at her glass-encased window.
Inhaling a deep breath, I went through the double-list of questions mandated by the state of Iowa and by the Brady Bill. Though many of the idiotic questions duplicated each other, I read them all very carefully. The last thing I wanted was to hurry past a trickily worded question and answer "no" when I should answer "yes."
Not meeting the eyes of the clerk, I handed over my "driver's license with a current address" and five dollars in cash (no checks accepted). (And what would a poor schmuck do if he didn't drive but wanted to purchase a weapon?)
"You should receive your new gun purchase permit in five to seven days," she said.
How nice, I thought.
Stuffing the receipt into my old wallet, I hurried from the building. As best I could, I struggled to shove aside the oddly unclean mental patina clinging to my thoughts.
I suppose I should have been "grateful" that the onerous procedure I suffered through fell short of the debasement I faced in the previous county in which I had lived. There, I had to be fingerprinted and show an apartment lease to prove I lived where my license said I did. Even after these gross violations of my rights, I had to make a second trip to the county jail (how appropriate a location for this exercise in "civic responsibility") to pick up my gun purchase permit in person. None of that silly "mailing" of my permit to my residence.
Don't even think about applying for a concealed carry permit in either of these counties. Unless you've got political clout or are a business owner who routinely carries large sums of cash, fuhgetaboutit. "Self-defense" as a valid reason for seeking permission to carry your gun with you? Ha-ha-ha-ha!!
But this is not an article devoted to railing against the unconstitutional, immoral, anti-self-defense laws and regulations permeating our nation like the swords of a magician piercing a basket. No. My goal here is to discuss the rule of law versus the rule of men; to explore the difference between that which is a right and that which is a privilege.
In "The Nature of Government," Ayn Rand wrote:
When the Bill of Rights tells the State that it may "make no law" or that it shall not "infringe" on our rights, it is placing constraints on the actions of the government, not on what the individual citizens of this country can or may do.
To anyone of even modest intelligence or common sense, "no law" and "do not infringe" are clear. As the old saying goes, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" Unfortunately, given the wonderful condition of government-run education that has held sway for the past century, this simple idea is far too complicated for the average politician to wrap his warped thoughts around. Apparently for these outstanding exemplars of intellectual acuity, "no laws" means "no laws we haven't gotten around to thinking up yet" shall be passed before they dredge them up from the murky depths of their psyches. "Do not infringe" must mean to our national leaders that as long as a tiniest sliver of a right is allowed to breathe, then they are on safe ground in honoring their "oaths" to uphold the Constitution.
"Allowed," "permitted," "disciplined" are words I have heard uttered time and again, for instance, by the major party candidates for Congress in my local district. Who will decide what is allowed and permitted and how the voters will be "disciplined"? Why, the pols, of course. At the outside, they may concede that "society" is what should determine which laws the Senators and Representatives will impose upon the rest of us...and, of course, they -- the politicos -- shall judge what precisely it is that "society" wants.
(Or as the incumbent here said recently in regard to socialized prescription medicine coverage for retired folks, "This is an idea whose time has come." So, of course, he is merely helpless to resist the juggernaut of history that forces him to vote for a program whose "time has come." To stand up for anything as foolish as the principles embodied in the Constitution or to defend the integrity of a republic -- not a democracy -- is, unfortunately, pointless. He just can't help himself.)
When the whims of a sheriff determine whether you will be permitted to buy, own, or carry a gun to defend yourself and your family;
When an arrogant member of a zoning board dictates that you will not be allowed to rebuild your business that was destroyed by fire because to do so would violate current zoning regulations;
When the members of an historic district board informs you that putting vinyl siding on your old house is forbidden because it offends their esthetic tastes;
When a faceless bureaucrat informs you that you will not be authorized to purchase or ingest a particular drug -- whether medicinal or recreational -- that you want or need;
When the aloof head of a school board will not enable you to send your children to the school of your choice or to learn the ideas and study the subjects you desire for them;
When a distant insurance agent appointed by the government will not approve the surgical procedure you want performed or the physician you prefer to visit;
When a government-anointed competitor refuses to grant you a license to work at a particular job or career or to sell a particular product;
When a green-suited thug smugly conveys the message that he will not acquiesce to your plans to develop your land or harvest your trees;
When any self-important bureaucrat, regulator, or politician proclaims that he will not tolerate you exercising your rights, your freedom, your moral autonomy, then the rule of law ceases to exist. We citizens have become little better than serfs trembling before the capricious and fickle powers of our small-minded masters. Saying the wrong thing, engaging in a forbidden action, or asserting yourself before a puffed-up tin-Napoleon can ruin your life...and in extreme cases, end it.
Ayn Rand wrote that:
Rand wrote this in 1963.
Remember that her warnings came before the passage of the Civil Rights Act that imposed anti-discrimination laws against private individuals; before Affirmative Action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the EEOC; before the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Crime Bill of 1994, or the Brady Bill; before the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, or Head Start; before the establishment of the Department of Education, HUD, or the EPA; before the War on Drugs, the DARE program, and the expansion of asset forfeiture; before Echelon or Carnivore; before the use of your Social Security number as a de facto national identification card; before Political Correctness and the "crime" of sexual harassment; before lawsuits against tobacco companies and gun manufacturers; before Ruby Ridge and Waco; before "zero tolerance" policies in schools; before urban "renewal" and recycling programs; before the tens of thousands of laws and regulations that have come into existence in the past four decades.
How much more groveling will Americans endure before they stand up and confront those who continue adding links to the chains holding us down? How much more freedom must we forfeit before we say enough is too much? How much more humiliation must be inflicted upon our heads before we declare the sanctity of our own lives, our own property, our own independence?
How much longer will you beg for permission to exist from the Nanny State that cares only for itself?
It's time to sever the apron strings, once and for all.
