I remember some time ago being in elementary school and staying inside during recess. Frigid temperatures and a merciless climate of shards of ice and suffocating air meant there were certain days we were forced to remain inside.
During those rare recesses when the classroom never left the class, our teachers would open boxes and totes containing toys of every size and shape. Each of us would rummage through the chest and make a calculated decision regarding which toy we wanted to play with.
But the classroom was small; our capacity for patience was smaller. It didn’t take long for students to become irritable. A glare here, a shove there, and soon a small skirmish in the corner of the classroom, often about nothing (the same as our adult skirmishes), was in full swing.
Of course, it didn’t take long for the assistant or teacher to swoop in and break up the fight. “No fighting about the toys!” was our reprimand, and rightfully so. The ethics of sharing are one debatable matter; the eruption of physical violence is quite another.
The teacher was justified in their reprimand because the toy was not our own. Resolving our claims to a toy, as classmates, through a duel of fists was not permitted because neither party could claim ownership of the toy itself. The toy was none of ours. It was, therefore, not ours to defend. It was the schools. Because the property was not our own, we possessed no right to defend it.
Of course, saying that “this toy is not yours, so you have no right to defend it” is tantamount to saying “this toy is yours, so you have a right to defend it.” You know if something is actually yours based on your right to defend it from harm.
Think of a vehicle. Suppose a carjacker tries to steal your tires, so you approach him with a baseball bat. There is nothing illegal or unethical about that—you are protecting what is yours and are exercising your rightful claim to property rights.
Think of a child. There is perhaps no man who displays wickedness, perversion, and evil, like a kidnapper. We shudder with a sense of indignation just thinking about it. If a man is walking with his child and a kidnapper attempts to commit the most vile of acts by trying to seize the child, no one is upset if the zealous father saves his child by knocking the kidnapper out.
Think of yourself. Suppose you are walking home late at night and a man tries to assault you. No one should be angry if you brandish a can of pepper spray and fend off your attacker. You (in a secular sense, not a scriptural one according to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20) are your own. You have the right to protect yourself because you are yours.
It is for that reason that Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent gun “freeze” (he just slipped up and called it a “ban”)* is so strange if one thinks our government wants us to own property.
However, the freeze [ban] is not strange if we know that Mr. Trudeau’s aim is not to see us protect our private property, but rather, to have it seized.
Every day, we approach a more socialist economy. Of course, true socialism is an economy where the state owns the means of production and distribution. Put simply, because the state decides what to do with the scarce resources in a socialist society, the state is the one who owns the resources.
But in such an economy, who should be able to defend his property? With socialism, there is no private property at all. How can you defend anything if you have nothing to defend? In a truly socialist economy, there is no need to own tools to aid in defence because nothing is ours, and if nothing is ours, then we, like students arguing about toys that are not our own, have no right to defend anything. It's not so much that everyone owns everything; it's that no one owns anything.
In this, Trudeau’s gun freeze (again, call it what it is—call it a ban), is not about silencing violence; it’s about removing our property rights and our right to own property. Banning us from defending ourselves insinuates that we are transitioning to a country where, “we own nothing” and are, not happy, but lobotomized.
We are far too timid about such things. We feel a sort of guilt for wanting to own a tool to defend ourselves, our family, and our property, and preface each argument about weapons with an apology.
What nonsense.
Your property is your own. Robbery is not only the violation of your property, but yourself. You trade a portion of your life for cash, and then use that cash to purchase goods and services. Robbery is therefore committing a sort of murder; the thief steals a slice of your life away by stealing your goods. To lose your ability to defend yourself from that because government says so is not just unethical; it’s criminal.
I hope you enjoyed! If you liked what you read and would like to support the site allowing me to continue writing articles, click here! Thank you so much
If you’d like to stay informed about the Christian's perspective of current events, or if you’d like to join our growing community of members who love truth, subscribe here!
I think pastor Dan Fisher would absolutely concur in his book “Unlimited Submission?“. Thanks again Tanner, for telling it like it is. Hope you don’t mind me sharing the link for pastor Dan’s website:) https://www.danfisherbrr.com