Monday, February 18, 2013

The Liberal Argument for Gun Control

Liberals argue that only the Police should have "assault weapons" which in this case, actually are assault weapons because the police possess fully automatic rifles. Also Liberals argue that only police should have high capacity magazines, because the police are there to protect us.

First, who meets the criminal first? Criminals generally don't target police, and if they do then the cops go crazy to find the guy. Look at the case of Christopher Dorner. This was the largest manhunt in California history. There were plenty of people who murdered far more people than Christopher Dorner, but they apparently did not deserve the largest manhunt in history. No, that was saved for someone who was targeting the police. In other words, when THEY are in danger, there is no limit to the effort to get the baddie, even burning a house down with him in it ala old west style vengeance.

The beltway sniper did not garner as extensive a manhunt because the criminal did not target police. I know the argument, if the baddie will go after cops, there's no telling what he will do to the civilian population. Really? Dorner didn't kill everyone he came across, he targeted police and those family members associated with the cops. If I was in the area, I'd feel just safe as could be, unless one of the cops shot me, because Dorner didn't want me dead, he wanted the boys in blue dead. Dorner took civilians hostage, and held them. He did not kill them, he was going after what he perceived to be the real bad guys, the cops. It would have been far easier for him to kill the couple he took hostage. It would have been far safer for him. They were not his enemy, but they didn't understand that.

That aside, generally speaking, criminals don't target cops, which probably explains why cops don't get too excited about most crimes against you and your family. So the cops need high capacity magazines, because they deal with criminals, but the criminals aren't going after cops, so if it is the presence of criminals, and the threat from criminals that is the justification, then don't we need high capacity magazines to protect ourselves?

Police officers die every year. In 2011, the last year for which I could find numbers. There were 83,000 murders in the united states. A tiny fraction of those were police officers. Yet we the victim set, are told that we can't do anything to protect ourselves, besides the police will protect us. We've all seen the cars, with the motto on the side. "To protect and serve" which is a lie, according to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect the citizens.

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.

So the law of the land is that the cops have no constitutional duty to protect you, your family, or anyone. As far as the courts are concerned, you're on your own, but you should not, according to the liberals, have any means to protect yourself.

So what does Assault Rifles, defined as fully automatic rifles in the hands of government agents do to protect you? Nothing much really, because what it does do is give them a cornered market, and make you even more of a victim.

No, I don't think I'll support this gun control, or what they're calling it now, Common Sense Gun Regulations. Pfui. When they have a duty to protect me, then I'll consider it. Until then, no thanks.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Hit Counter