The following story came across my desk today:
I made a traffic stop on an elderly lady the other day for speeding on MN State Hightway 210 just East of McGregor, MN.
I asked for driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance.
The lady took out the required information and handed it to me. In with the cards I was somewhat surprised (due to her advanced age) to see she had a Conceal Carry Permit. I looked at her and asked if she had a weapon in her possession at this time.
She responded that she indeed had a .45 automatic in her glove box. Something – body language, or the way she said it – made me want to ask if she had any other firearms.
She did admit to also having a 9mm Glock in her center console. Now I had to ask one more time if that was all.
She responded once again that she did have just one more, a .38 special in her purse. I then asked her what she was so afraid of.
She looked mew right in the eye and said, “Not a f—ing thing!”
On first sight, this looks like a funny story. But in my eyes there is some much wrong with it that we can really learn a lot from it.
The first, and most obvious is the elderly lady’s willingness to submit unquestioning to those she claims not to be afraid of. Why doesn’t she just use all that hardware on the person who stopped her with the intention to extort some money from her.
I don’t know if she was actually driving recklessly, endangering others so that the trooper had to intervene to save life and property of others, or if he was enforcing some random rules made by some men in black robes. Looking at the alleged location of this story…
… the second reason seems more likely.
Examining our own reaction this story allows us to learn to understand the real problem. We find this story funny but only because we all agree with the idea that what the trooper did was correct. Beside stopping her with the intend of robbing her for some made-up reason (speed limit), we are also not appalled by his inquiry into her exercising her rights that are already confirmed by the troopers superiors. She has a carry permit, so she can carry whatever she wants and does not have to answer to any lowly enforcer’s questions.
The only reasonable answer to the enforcer’s very first question should have been “None of your f—ing business!” But she probably knew that the only reaction to that answer would have been to be dragged out of the car and her acting upon her later statement of not being afraid of nobody. And that would have been the end of that trooper and we would have never heard of that story.
We might have heard it in a different way, as, for example, that a vicious female in Minnesota had murdered a trooper just doing his duty and the swat team that had been called in to hunt down this murderous beast had shot her 86 times – and only because the avengers ran out of bullets.
One question to leave you with – did you stumble over the trooper’s wording of “She did admit to also having…” or did you just read over this? If you did read over this without a serious growl in your throat then I have to sadly give it to you that you also consider yourself chattel of the ruling class.