Mob Rule vs The Consent of the Governed

Government’s primary purpose – at all levels – is to protect the rights of minorities. The smallest minority is the individual; therefore, government’s primary purpose is to protect the rights of the individual.

“Mob rule” or “the tyranny of the majority” is when the whims of uninformed and/or fearful individuals (who are manipulated by politicians to get a specific result) are enforced on those who are informed and who bear the full effect of those whims.

Canada’s gun laws (and almost every gun law around the world) is imposed by mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority.

Consent of the governed. What does this mean?

A law, any law, requires the consent of the people who are governed by that law. Anything else is mob rule.

For example, if you drive a vehicle on public roads, you are governed by a collection of laws and regulations that deal with individuals in control of motor vehicles. This includes, but is not limited to, driver’s licenses, vehicle insurance, speed limits, etc.

Anyone who does not drive a motor vehicle is not affected by that collection of laws and regulations, therefore they should have no say in the creation, application or enforcement of those laws and regulations.

For a law or regulation to be deemed “fair”, most people affected by it must agree with it and/or support it.

“The Just Society will be one in which the rights of minorities will be safe from the whims of intolerant majorities.”

–Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Canada, under Justin Trudeau, has fallen a long way from his father’s ideal – where the rights and freedoms of all citizens were to be equal, and no person’s or group’s fears should ever overrule those rights and freedoms without a valid reason, backed by evidence.

Laws against murder, rape, sexual abuse and child slavery are almost universally accepted. These laws have “the consent of the governed.”

Those who practice these heinous acts disagree, which puts them outside the bounds of “polite society” and into the class of “criminal offender.”

Their disagreement is not logical, nor is it beneficial to society, so it is ignored.

 

Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse for Mob Rule

Those who know the least about firearms law and the safe storage, handling and use of firearms are the most fearful of them, as polls throughout the decades show.

A 2019 Angus Reid survey showed that 87% of those who knew the most about firearms and firearms law said there was no need for more laws.

That same study showed that those who knew nothing about firearms or firearms law were in favour of greater restrictions on firearms and firearms owners.

Canada’s political class – especially under Justin Trudeau’s reign – count on that lack of knowledge, that ignorance of current laws or how a person may legally acquire and possess a firearm.

“If we just pass this new set of restrictions, you will be safe,” these politicians claim.

It’s a lie, of course, as it always is, but it plays into the fears – fears stoked by those politicians to advance their own agendas. They “crack down” on those with no connection to the problem these politicians claim they want to solve.

In the 8 years since Justin Trudeau took office, Statistics Canada shows that violent crime is up (and rising) across a multitude of categories.

Clearly, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government’s “plan” to solve violent crime is not working.

Yet every time another drug dealer, gang member or lunatic (often with multiple weapons prohibition orders against them already) shoots someone, this Liberal government’s “answer” is to slap a new and harsher round of restrictions on the most law-abiding segment of Canadians: licensed firearms owners.

For criminals, Trudeau relaxes penalties or removes them entirely – all while telling fear-filled Canadians that this next round of restrictions on licensed gun owners will (miraculously) solve the problem of criminal violence and “keep them safe.”

All of which leaves us with a dilemma.

Should those who are unaffected by changes to the law be permitted to dictate what those changes must be?

In a rational world, no, of course not.

It’s easy to say someone else’s culture, heritage and way of life must be destroyed “for the greater good.”

It’s an entirely different thing for someone else to demand that your culture, your heritage and your way of life must be destroyed to allay someone else’s anxieties, fears and ignorance.

Those decisions never sit well with you then, and for obvious reasons.

Government’s role is not to apply the whims of the uninformed majority on the minority – especially when the government itself stokes those fears so they can enforce those whims.

Government’s role is to protect and defend the rights and freedoms of the minority, and the individual is the smallest minority.