Friday, June 3, 2011

Gun Rights 101

Why we have the second amendment, Part 1; "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state..."

The founders of this nation, after fighting a war for independence, realized that they may one day need to fight such a war again.  Simply put, we recognized that our elected and appointed leaders may endeavor to go beyond their enumerated powers.  The second amendment ensures that the people of a free state would never be deprived of the arms that they may be required to use to take that power back.

Part 2;  "The right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."  The founders of this great nation recognized that the security and defense of liberty could only be guaranteed by the governed.  Much has changed since the days of the colonies.  Much has remained the same.  In the days of the colonies, there was no 911 or telegraph.  in the event of a crime the people must be able to secure their own defense.

Even today,  the police can not be everywhere at all times.  so many crimes are committed that the police must prioritize every criminal complaint.  Ultimately,  our survivability during a violent criminal act can only be assured by our ability to fend for our selves.

Part 3; The roll of the police; The police exist to investigate crimes, make arrests and assist prosecutors in gaining convictions.  Two cases heard by the united states supreme court exemplify the fact that the police are not required to provide security and defense; Warren v. District of Columbia and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services.  In essence,  If the police did not place you into harms way,  they are not liable for your personal safety and protection.  Where does that leave us?  That leaves with the duty to decide for ourselves what measure of personal protection we deem appropriate.

The Opposition; Would have us believe that we need not be concerned, the police will protect us.  They believe that we can not be trusted with firearms because the police are far better trained to deal with criminal acts.  The opposition is delusional.  Yes,  the average permit holder receives only 8 hours of initial, required instruction to be eligible for their permit aside from the background investigation.  Permit holders are trained only to use their arms for self defense.  Permit holders are not expected to serve high risk warrants,  make arrests or answer criminal complaints.  The opposition ignores the fact that the police are a reactionary force, not a proactive force.  A criminal is not going to commit their crime if a police officer is near, they are going to wait until the risk of capture, arrest and prosecution is minimal.

The well trained, well armed, law abiding citizen is the key to the greatest form of personal protection and deterence the world has ever known.

No comments:

Post a Comment