Ask any police officer out there on the streets if they are responsible for your personal safety. For your personal protection. Or the safety of your wife, your children, your home. Unless they're lying through their teeth, they will be the first to tell you that no, they are not! They can't possibly be. The defense and the protection of yourself, your loved ones, your home and possessions... that's all up to you. The police are not there to protect anyone. They are simply there to pick up the pieces after shit happens. They are there to try to figure out who to blame. Who to arrest and charge for having committed the crime. They are not there to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. That's YOUR job. Don't ever forget this or make the mistake of believing otherwise. Whether you're a man or a woman...
Just think back for a couple of moments. How many horror stories have you heard or read about in the news, or seen on television, where an individual had a restraining order on him and a history of violent behaviour. In every instance, even though the courts and the police knew full well this person intended to harm (or actually kill...) their ex-spouse or girlfriend, they could do absolutely nothing until that individual carried out his plan. This is something that in a civilized society, has to change.
Home invasions have never been so popular. Experts are quick to point out that the drug culture is likely to blame for this. How many home invasions have ever been prevented or stopped by local police officers? That's right. Zero! So now we've got people of every age group, looking to burglarize your home so they can feed their habit. These folks are either high or strung out as they commit their crimes. Either way, there's no discussing with them when you find them rifling through your belongings. My premise? Human rights only apply to those in our society that play the game by the rules! You don't get accorded human rights just by breathing and walking upright.
If any individual should enter my home, with the intent of committing a crime, he or she has just forfeited whatever rights they might have had. I am the law in my home. This is my domain. My right to protect myself and exact retribution on those who would deliberately threaten my existence, is sacrosanct. It is not a right that is granted by any man-made court or system. Or even by some imaginary deity. It is my inalienable right as a living creature. It is more than a right, it is an obligation. It is the very basis by which we live or die. It is in fact the law of Natural Selection. If I cannot or will not defend myself and mine, then we don't get to survive. It's as simple as that. I have given up my right to exist. So my self-defense is not a responsibility which I am willing, or should even consider foisting off on someone else. I'm sure you've already heard various phrases which might reflect this type of mindset. One of my favorites is: "I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six". There is not a court in the land that could rightfully convict someone who exercised his right to survival. Like the window decal says: "If you're found here tonight, you'll be found here tomorrow!"
I'm not one who likes to create drama where there is none. I'm not out to scare anyone or claim there's a non-existent boogey-man around every corner and under every bed. But again, my thoughts and beliefs are based on nothing but reality. You are responsible for your own safety. Now more than ever before. If you can't or won't defend yourself, nobody else will. I personally believe in being armed. I believe in knowing how to handle a weapon proficiently, as well as when to use it. I believe in being willing and able to defend onesself. I believe in the old proverb of "an eye for an eye". Does this make me a danger to society in general? Absolutely not. Does it make me a danger to those who would invade my space? Damn straight! There are only three camps here. There are the criminals, the victims and the non-victims. I choose to be a non-victim. Not an avenging angel or a harbinger of doom to those who constitute the very dregs of our society, but simply a non-victim.
I occasionally hear people fall back on the trite old line of: "C'mon, man... Where do you think we live? Back in the Wild West?" No... we don't live back in the days of the 'Wild West'. They never had, or ever experienced, the type of social disorder or rampant crime that we have here in North America today. They never did because they would never have tolerated it. In those days, they actually had law and order. It wasn't just a fictional TV show back then. It was real life. I believe what the judicial system in the State of Texas believes. It has been said that one exonerating excuse for what might seem murder is that the target (”victim” conveys an erroneous connotation), "needed killing". To put it in other terms, there certainly is such a thing as justifiable homicide. Ours however are the days where the criminals have more rights and enjoy better protection than any of their victims ever did. Now it's all about how they were scarred by a bad upbringing, they weren't held enough, they were abandoned, their parents fought or drank, or some other bullshit that's meant to absolve them of any responsibility for that family of six they recently butchered. Ours are the days where the innocent must wait to be preyed upon yet again, before their judicial system will do anything to aid them... normally a case of too little and way too late.
Well I renounce such a world. I renounce such a farcical judicial system that exercises a revolving door policy towards repeat offenders and which releases dangerous and unrepentent criminals upon an unsuspecting and woefully ill-prepared public. I think it's high time that we stopped treating bona fide victims as expendable people, and perhaps start viewing criminals as expendable members of society. There are too many criminals and not enough prisons, they tell us. So let us decide... What is the problem, really? Is it that there are not enough prisons? Or is it that there are too many criminals? What is the fix? Which solution would best serve the interests and well-being of the Canadian public? Which one would do the most in curtailing reoffenders, in providing a guarantee of the public's safety, in expediting justice?
Will building more prisons really address any of these concerns? No, I didn't think so. Nor is it economically feasible. There was a reason why this country at one time was a proponent of capital punishment. Many will say that capital punishment was never proven as a deterrent for crime. I say to you, that deterrence was never the intent. It was there to punish. To exact the highest form of retribution for crimes deemed particularily heinous. Not to deter. Do you think our liberal courts system offers any type of a deterrent for crime? Shake your head if you do. If anything, it promotes crime and lawlessness. I know too that there are those who claim to live with this supposed horror, that our judicial system would end up convicting and executing an innocent man. Hey... Talk to the courts. Convictions for such crimes are normally based on some pretty credible evidence nowadays. It's not just based on hearsay. So how about a little of that compassion for innocent lives lost, when a career dirtbag is let back out in the community to kill again. Where is that 'sense of horror over the loss of an innocent life' then? That's right... it's not there, is it? They're just the victims and once they're dead, who gives a rat's ass anyway, right?
Too many criminals, you say? Well let's start weeding them out. Let's start taking this gargantuan burden off the backs of the law abiding masses. Let's start re-enforcing an actual, honest to God criminal code. One where crimes are recognized as such and punishment is meted out accordingly. I say bring back capital punishment. The horrors and the frequency of crimes committed in this country today, have known no precedent in our history. It must be time we started doing something about it. And yes, 'rehabilitation' has it's place within the system, to some extent. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a psychologist to recognize someone who wants to be rehabilitated and one who could care less.
Here's yet another point for you. There have been some in the past who were of the opinion that a person should get the death penalty, if he murdered a police officer. Let's think of that for just a moment. A police officer. Someone who is armed, who is trained in physical combat as well as the use of deadly force. Who is permitted to travel about in our society, armed and able to defend himself at a moment's notice. I for one, have issues with this on several levels. First of all, I do not enjoy being held up as 'disposable', as compared to a peace officer.
Secondly, this individual is armed. At all times. He or she is also normally in the company (or should be if they have any operational sense...) of other armed officers, as they go about the performance of their daily duties. For us poor, slovenly, 'expendable' civilians, unless we have taken the precaution of arming ourselves at home, we are pretty much at the mercy of these thugs. They say that our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line everyday they go to work. Well I'm here to tell you that the vast majority of Canadians inhabiting large urban centres do the same thing and without the benefit of any weaponry. Or body armour, for that matter...
Murder is murder. It is even more heinous when committed against a victim that has no way of defending themself. And deliberately killing a child has to be the very worse transgression a person can commit. So please... don't come off telling me that a police officer's life is worth more than mine, or my wife's, or my children's. That's just unadulterated bullshit! Intentional murder of another person, regardless of what line of work they are in, should be punishable by death. Period! There's your deterrence factor! I should also mention that I don't buy into this 'crime of passion' bullshit either. That follows the same mentality as absolving someone for murder because they were drunk or stoned at the time, and therefore "didn't know what they were doing". I'm sure that is a great comfort to the grieving family. It was their initial decision to drink or use in the first place. That very fact alone makes them 100% accountable and responsible for any event that took place thereafter. And don't even get me started on the phony, so-called 'War on Drugs'. If this was ever a real war on drugs, the enemy KIA list should be a Hell of a lot longer than what it is.
But this of course, is only one man's opinion... and on a closing note, anyone who sees crime occuring around them and chooses to remain uninvolved, then you have absolutely no right to complain about anything. There are far too many people who prefer "not to get involved". This of course gives a green light to criminals everywhere. If you are not part of the solution, you are in fact part of the problem. You become a silent accomplice, but one who is as guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal as the one who actually assists him in the commission of a crime or in the subsequent covering up.