In a moment of crisis, ultimate loyalties have a way of bubbling to the surface as the individual must decide which authority takes precedence in an individual’s life. But in this day where the state supercedes all the others, woe unto the individual mistakenly assuming one of the other orders of creation, to use Augustine’s term, belongs at the top of the sociological pyramid.
To most Americans, the highest temporal priorities include protecting their children, their own lives, and the well-being of that of their property. These prerogatives, at one time, went nearly unquestioned — especially within the boundaries of one’s own home. However, one New York man has learned first hand that there are those who think that a man is no longer the king of his castle and parents no longer the first line of defense against those undermining the sanctity of the home.
Upon discovering an intruder in his son’s bedroom, Ronald Dixon registered his disapproval of this uninvited thug by emphatically discharging metal projectiles into the brigand’s gut and groin. One would think that would be the end of it with the criminal carted off to jail and the valiant homeowner patted on the back and allowed to reestablish some degree of normalcy after having endured such a trauma.
But in a world where the moral order has been inverted and evil called “good” and good “evil,” in this instance a loving father might end up receiving a punishment as proportionally severe as that to be received by the subhuman scumbag defiling the inviolable confines of this upright citizen’s domicile.
According to the New York Daily News, the District Attorney’s office insists the use of an unlicensed gun cannot be condoned. Maybe not, but neither can asinine bureaucratic pettiness.
Unlike the home-invader, Mr. Dixon has no felonious past as long as your arm and was in the process of navigating his legally-obtained firearm through the labyrinth of New York’s esoteric registration process. Saying he was out of line in using it to defend his home on this technicality is akin to saying that Rosa Parks really belonged at the back of the bus regardless of the obvious affront against her innate human dignity. Should a father whose driver’s license has expired refuse to rush his pregnant wife to the maternity ward? I don’t know what leftwing hooey passes for legal education nowadays, but anyone who has seen at least an episode of “JAG” knows about a little something referred to as “extenuating circumstances.”
Taken to its conclusion, the jurisprudence advocated in this case requires the victim to place his family upon the altar of the state since its whims must be satiated above all else and for him to rely upon this institution in an almost penitent fashion awaiting a beneficence unlikely to be delivered, namely the protection of Mr. Dixon’s family, which the individual was clearly capable of providing for himself. Is Mr. Dixon obligated to stand back with a smile on his face and watch his children be murdered and his wife raped knowing he has complied with some trivial regulation crafted by some swanky legislator beholden to the gun control racket who lives in some gated community complete with guardhouse and bowtied nightwatchmen.
The only thing Mr. Dixon should be chastised for is not finishing this vagabond off. He should not be forced to endure the dank horrors of Riker’s Island for a single second. That is, rather, an indignity that should be visited upon those who would use the minutia of statutes to cloud the honored precepts of true justice.
”’Copyright 2003 by Frederick Meekins; American WorldView Dispatch, see”’ http://americanworldview.tripod.com