The Problem
We’re told we don’t need guns; we have the police. At the same time the government is moving towards limiting our 2nd Amendment rights, they are also urging the downsizing of the police force. In fact, the treatment of cops is causing many to retire or otherwise leave the force. And the incoming classes are empty; people are choosing not to opt for a career as an officer. But are police the answer to protect our safety? Isn’t their real role to solve crimes, not stop them?
A famous quote goes like this, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” If you look to their charter, only rarely could they be where they need to be to prevent crime. In a Supreme Court decision in 2005, a woman who had filed a restraining order against her estranged husband asked for police assistance when he abducted their children; the aid was denied. Her husband arrived at the police station with the bodies of the three daughters. She sued, saying she had a right to police protection. SCOTUS ruled as follows:
“The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”
While police do act as a deterrent, most of us realize that we may find ourselves face-to-face to with a criminal. What you do at that moment may determine how long you live. With penalties for criminal behavior waning and more and more violent crooks being released from prison, we’re all more likely to become victims. Don’t you need to have protection, if you want it?
Government Overreach
We hear a constant clamor for “sensible gun reform,” but what does that mean? With over 20,000 laws on the books, what law is missing that would limit the ability of criminals to get guns? The answer is…none. We need strong enforcement of the laws against bad guys, but we also need to roll back the many laws that really only affect the rest of us. If you read the proposed laws carefully, you’ll figure out quickly that they aren’t aimed at criminals. They’re aimed at making it difficult and expensive for us to have a weapon when they need one. This is particularly true for the poor and minority populations who are threatened far more often in their neighborhoods than most of us are. But aren’t those the people the government claims to want to help?
What’s Really Going On
The CCP virus exploded the myth that gun control was about safety; it’s about control. Democrats don’t want people to have the ability to defend themselves (or make any other choices, like schools for their kids, health decisions, etc.). Do they actually care about shootings? No, because if they did, there would be far more severe consequences when crooks use guns. Governments invested in power also hate the idea that citizens might oust them forcibly; guns give us the power, and the right to do so. What they want to do is take our guns.
I remember hearing conservatives and President Trump referred to as Nazis. But Trump never tried to increase government control. In fact, he reduced regulations significantly and tried to free us. His success was limited due to the power of the unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch and the stonewalling of Congress, but he tried. Only the Democrats try to take our guns, just like Adolf Hitler did to the Jews. So, who is the Nazi now? Other dictators have used the same tactic to increase their power and control. I doubt many Cubans have a weapon.
Who Do You Trust?
This week’s link is worth a gander, talking about why you should turn your guns over the government. You’ll enjoy the “justifications.” Covid has shown us epic government fails, as they fumble and bumble, while continually increasing their power, their footprint and their cost to us taxpayers. Even if you never want to have a gun, don’t you want your neighbor, or the person next to you at a 7-11 to have one?
As a woman, I feel particularly vulnerable and have thus acquired concealed carry permits allowing me to carry in 33 states. However, none of them are valid in my state – the People’s Republic of California. As an interesting note, the reason gay marriage became a federal right was because a majority of states had already granted this right to their people. A majority of the states (42) are now shall-issue or constitutional, which should mean that every law-abiding adult who wants one should have 50-state concealed carry.
In October, the Supreme Court is expected to hear NYSRPA v. Corlett, a case involving the “shall issue” problem. As you probably know, many famous people have the right to carry, but in most cases, they paid a “fee” to the sheriff’s campaign war chest to exercise their right. Most of us can’t afford this, which makes some people “more equal than others.” If SCOTUS agrees that this violates the Constitution, we may all have more choices in protection.
If you like my blog, please subscribe and share with others. I’d love to grow my base and get my words out to others. Thank you.