Sheriff Clark has once again struck a tender nerve. However, unlike his antagonizing of local liberals, he has crossed state lines and is antagonizing the liberals nation wide. His PSA calls for people to be prepared to protect themselves in the event they are attacked and police cannot be there to respond immediately. Of course this has most liberals outraged that a law enforcement official would challenge people to protect both themselves and their personal property. At a time when liberals are preparing a full out assault on the second amendment, this empowerment of the individual does not fit into the mantra of weapons being evil. Yet, is it the empowerment of self defense that has the liberals truly worked up with regards to his comments?
The larger message Clarke is sending is the inability of the government to protect you at all times. He is saying that your first line of defense is yourself and your own initiative. The concept of personal responsibility flies I the face of the message centered in progressive thought. In order for liberals to exist, they must teach the public that they are helpless to control their own fate in our society. Therefore, they must put all faith in their government to provide that control and in the case of crime; we are to expect protection from our government rather than an attempt to protect ourselves.
This might sound ridiculous that liberals would reject the notion of self protection. Yet, when policy is forwarded that would enable one to protect him/herself, it is the liberals in our society that put up the challenge. For instance, here in Wisconsin conservatives have battled for two pieces of legislation central to the theme of self protection. The first was concealed carry and the second was castle doctrine laws. In both cases these are pieces of legislation that empower the individual to protect him/herself and property. However as we saw, there was a battle to prevent either one from existing. Most liberals will challenge that these laws place innocent people in harms way and create an environment of vigilantism; which is rather odd when we look at Chicago where liberals have succeeded in preventing such citizen empowerment and the criminal element has chosen to empower itself. If reducing the ability of law abiding citizens to empower themselves increase the ability of the criminal, why would there be any objection?
Liberal agenda is about power. This desire for power is usually wrapped up in the packaging of helping the innocent, such as we see with Sheriff Clarke and protecting the people from vigilantism. However, there is no evidence that such a thing occurs or has occurred in other states where these laws were already in place. Proof of concept is not a necessary test for liberal policy, because it is not based on success but the amount of control you gain over the population. For example, one would think the driving motivation to any gun related legislation would be to lower the gun violence rate. Therefore, the source of the guns used in violent crimes should be the target. In a 2001 study, it found that less then 14% of firearms used in crimes were purchased by legal means. Yet, we see liberals in every instance attacking the legal use and acquisition of firearms while ignoring the other 86% of acquisitions. Who are they helping? It is obvious that criminals have other avenues for guns, under liberal policy it is the innocent law abiding citizens that lacks an ability to empower him/herself. In response to these personal defense laws, the liberals have provided no alternative solution that addresses the problem. The only explanation is this lack of solution is that the goal is to control the power of the people. If the citizens are scared with no line of self defense, they must rely on the government. They must rely on the liberal.
At the heart of the anger over this PSA is not whether people should defend themselves, but that people might become self reliant. A self reliant culture has less need for intrusive government and more need for free market capitalism. It makes liberal policy irrelevant.