They don't trust us, why should we trust them?

Michael Bargo, Jr. has an interesting piece at the American Thinker today entitled Democrats Empower Citizens to Restrict Constitutional Rights. Mr. Bargo makes some good points, and I should have made them myself if not for the Stockholm Syndrome under which I live, where restaurants, employers, hospitals, banks, you name it, restrict my right to carry every day. Bargo:

Just imagine if a storeowner in Illinois used crime statistics to argue that he should be allowed to ban blacks from his store. Look at the facts; he/she may argue: blacks are 13% of the population yet commit 56% of the robberies, 28 % of the property crime, and 41% of the weapons arrests. The fact is, the black crime rate is higher than that of whites’. Yet no one, especially a Democrat who fights concealed carry permit laws, would dare suggest that this is a reasonable justification for a storeowner to ban blacks from entering their stores.

But storeowners fearing guns are allowed to discriminate against concealed carry permit carriers. However, there is not one iota of evidence that concealed weapon carriers commit crimes at a rate higher than non-carriers. The FBI doesn’t categorize murder or other crimes as to whether or not the perpetrator had a concealed carry permit. The crime rate for concealed carry weapons permit holders is, if you study FBI records, zero. While some murderers use legal guns, they do not have concealed carry permits, according to FBI data.

Yet, the truth is, I have allowed myself to be cowed through fear of the consequences, to be disarmed when I don't want to be. The fact is that crimes, and now terrorist acts, can happen at any time, anywhere. They are most likely to happen in places where the establishment of venue has advertised a "no gun" zone, which is the same thing as advertising to those who desire to kill as a "target rich environment.

Bargo is writing here about conditions in the State of Illinois and the Chicago area, but the fact is that the the Second Amendment is severely infringed pretty much everywhere in the United States.  The first violation of citizens' civil rights is the prior restraint on the person who wishes to exercise his right to keep and bear arms.  Now, I don't have to have this blog approved by a government bureaucrat before I hit the "Publish" button.  Why?  Because there is no prior restraint on the First Amendment.  I can, in fact, scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  There will be consequences for doing so, but there is no prior restraint.  However, to buy a gun, I have to first prove to a government agency a negative-that I have no felonies or, increasingly, misdemeanors that may disqualify me from owning a gun.  Then there is this:

It’s also an issue of equal protection of the law. It is difficult for Democrats to explain how Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have secret service protection whose members carry loaded handguns but civilians in Illinois are banned from carrying legal handguns to most public places. Equal protection also means equal protection under the Second Amendment.

Actually, it isn't difficult, because no one ever asks. That people in the public eye need protection is hardly stretch. There are nuts and whackos (technical terms) out there, who solve the "problem" of free speech by assassinating people whose speech they don't like. Even movie stars, musicians, and people who are famous for being famous may need extra protection, and they should have it, even Bloomberg. I don't want these people to be killed, or to allow their speech to be censured because of fear of reprisals.  But it might be a good idea the next time the President starts up on "sensible gun restrictions" or whatever the focus group term is is using today for gun grabbing why he hates the American People? Why don't state governments trust their own citizens? And if they don't trust us, should we trust them? Trust, after all, like respect, is something that must be earned.

I can not tell you, gentle readers, what to do, but more and more people are resisting, applying some civil disobedience, and daring the government to "come and take them."  We all think about how we can resist-throw a monkey wrench in the works.  John Galt was an inventor and industrialist.  But you don't need to be a major industrialist to "go Galt."  Socialist systems eventually crumble under the accumulated weight of the fantasies necessary to sustain them.  We can help by resisting, opting out, and not playing along.

The fact is that nobody cares about you but you and your family, your friends, and those whose lives you have touched.  To politicians, of both parties, you are a faceless member of the masses.  Only God new you, personally, before creation, so it is only He whom you must obey.