YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT 'ALLOWED'

This year, American adults have been subjected to the word "allowed" at levels most haven't experienced since elementary school. America's gun owners have had this word thrown at them for decades and many have, unfortunately, gotten used to it. Some of us have always bristled at the cavalier way this word has been bandied about, especially in reference to our fundamental rights. Now more Americans are discovering that it's unnerving and maybe a little ominous to hear politicians, bureaucrats, and "reporters" explaining what we are and are not "allowed" to do.

When a reporter talks about whether the Governor will "allow businesses to reopen," that statement suggests as fact that the governor has the authority to decide whether businesses can be in business. When bureaucrats say that lawful carry of firearms has been "allowed" in the Michigan State Capitol for decades, the use of that word implies a privilege that was bestowed upon the people by a higher authority, and which can be revoked by that authority at any time.

The word "allow" rightly belongs almost exclusively to parents, teachers, and property owners. Parents might not allow certain words to be used by their children. Teachers might allow a designated amount of free time for students to work on personal projects, and property owners might not allow smoking on their premises. Those are all valid and acceptable uses of the word "allow." What is not valid or acceptable, is the use of the word "allow" in relation to what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, may decree regarding the rights of the people.

Whenever the media and government operatives use the word "allow," they are reinforcing the idea that "the state" is the authority, and "the state" may mandate or proscribe virtually any action or behavior of we the people.

That's not how it works. Not under our Constitution and the philosophy of liberty upon which our system of government is founded. Under our system, government doesn't "allow" us to do anything.

We allow the government to establish laws and regulations, such as speed limits. But we wouldn't —or shouldn't — say that the government "allows" us to drive 65 MPH on the freeway. Instead, we should say that driving faster that 65 MPH is prohibited. It is semantics, but semantics are often important. The word "allow" assumes wide authority and implies that anything falling under that broad authority, is a privilege granted by the "allowing" entity.

I've raised this issue in the past, with only a few people, mostly within the gun rights community, grasping the significance of this argument. But since the seemingly endless Chi-Comm virus mess, more people are seeing the word "allow" used against them, and they're beginning to resent it.

For many, it's just a feeling. They're not sure why, but when they see or hear a report that uses the word "allow," they feel somehow insulted.

Well, they should feel insulted. We should all feel insulted when any reporter, politician, or bureaucrat suggests that our rights are actually privileges bestowed upon us by a benevolent state, and which the state can revoke for any reason, or no reason at all, at any time. The suggestion is an outrage, and we should all be livid every time we hear or see it.

Just a few months ago, it would have been outrageous for any reporter or politician to use the word "allow" in reference to churches meeting, but now it's become common for governors, mayors, and the media to talk about "allowing" church services. A major metropolitan police force declared that "Protest is not essential," and only essential activities are "allowed." Gun shops and ranges had to sue politicians who declared they weren't allowed to be open and operating.

Under the cloud of the Chi-Comm Virus, the word "allow" is being applied to virtually everything we say or do. That must not be allowed to continue. Every time you see the word "allow" in a news story, unless it is talking about what "we the people" allow government to properly do, you should be outraged and should leave a comment or write a letter to the editor calling out the writer's use of that word. If the reporter is quoting a politician or bureaucrat, challenge the reporter to question the use of that word, and then send a letter or email to the politician or bureaucrat — and their boss — demanding that they stop using language that suggests subjugation of the American people.

Be outraged. Be angry. Be indignant, and let the reporters, bureaucrats, and politicians know that you're outraged, and that you demand that they stop undermining rights and misinforming the public with their sloppy, lazy, or intentionally subversive choice of words. Demand better. Don't allow them to get away with this reprogramming effort. Spread this message far and wide, and demand that our rights be respected – both in deeds and in words.