Why is it that people like the Brady Campaign and anti-2nd Amendment legislators always push restrictive legislation, but give an exemption to law enforcement personel. The contention is that banning things like semi-automatic rifles or handguns will make the world safer "for our children" because the bad guys won't have them anymore. If the criminals have their guns banned then shouldn't law enforcement be able to use items like pepper spray and tazers? There should be no need for lethal force. The answer to this is because the bad guys will have guns no matter what restrictions are placed on them. In fact, they love restrictive firearm legislation because honest Americans can no longer defend themselves.
This brings us to the next point. If the legislators know that criminals will still have guns, why are the LEOs and people with enough money to hire professional security personell the only ones who would have the right and ability to defend themselves? Is it because they are more responsible gun owners? I think not. In fact, a much higher percentage of Americans are shot accidentally by law enforcement than by law abiding citizens. In just the past few months a man was accidentally shot and killed while handcuffed and lying on the ground in Oakland. In Utah a police officer left his M4 rifle in someone's front yard and only retrieved it after the homeowner called to report it. Does this sound like responsible gun ownership?
The primary role of law enforcement is to show up after a crime has taken place, gather evidence and track down the criminal. If they arrive in time to aid the victim they will do so. You know the old saying, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.". I do not want to trust the safety of my family to whether or not a criminal will obey firearm regulations.
Our founding fathers gave us the Bill of Rights to protect us from our government and allow us to live with freedom. We must protect these liberties with the same zeal that they showed or we will lose them forever. While the right to bear arms may not appear to be the most important right that we have, without it all of our rights are in jeopardy. An armed citizenry is able to stand against tyranny. An unarmed society is at the mercy of an elite establishment and whatever political party is in control. When one party controls all three branches of government, as they come very close to doing in 2009, there are no checks and balances against a radical agenda.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi) seemed like the saviors of Germany when they were elected to power. Registering gun owners in Germany seemed like a great idea at the time. I am sure that confiscating everyone's weapons seemed like a good idea "for the children" at the time. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."-George Santayana
Will we have the same drive and conviction as our founding fathers? Will we stand together or will we look the other way as our personal freedoms are slowly eroded?
No comments:
Post a Comment