By L&T Managing Editor Larry Phillips
The country has seen more horrendous killings this week involving school children and teachers. Unbelievably, children were doing the killing in Danvers, Mass., and Sparks, Nev.
Authorities have said a 14-year-old boy killed a young female teacher in Danvers with a box cutter, but in Sparks, a 12-year-old boy used a pistol to kill a male teacher there, a former Marine.
Sadly, it will be another terrible tragedy the anti-gunners will use as a political tool to try and disarm the lawful gun owners in this nation.
Liberal’s Robert Caraway had a poignant opinion piece in Thursday’s L&T.
“Does a gun amplify the potential and power for a person with evil intentions? Of course, it does,” Caraway noted. “But it also amplifies the potential and power of a good person whose intention is to stop evil.”
That always brings me back to the question: Who is responsible for protecting ourselves, our families, friends and neighbors?
It’s a question you should ask yourself, too.
Many say it’s the job of law enforcement to do that.
I’ve always said baloney to that theory, and that’s what it is, a theory. It has never been proven to work, and it never will.
National Rifle Association President James W. Porter II has a wonderful piece in this month’s edition of the American Hunter magazine called “No Duty To Protect.”
It verifies what many gun owners already know.
He pointed out two court decisions – our own government – that explains the police have no obligation to protect you, or anybody for that matter.
Here are the “opinions of the District of Columbia Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals issued in 1978 and 1981 blocking a suit by three young women who had been raped and beaten for 14 hours during a nightmarish home invasion in 1975 (the Warren Case).
“… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
Here’s the second: “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”
These opinions were reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2005 when it handed down, “… police have no duty to protect ordinary citizens.”
If some anti-gun nut starts with the bull that it’s the police’s job to protect us, and if we’d just get rid of all the guns, everything would be hunky-dory, tell him or her these facts listed above. Have him or her look them up.
Porter also noted, “Had the young women in the Warren case been armed, they could have defended themselves. But at the time, such armed self-defense was a crime in Washington, D.C.”
It’s unfathomable that a law was on the books against owning a tool that could save your life. Thankfully, that law no longer exists.
The U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark June 2008 Heller decision, struck down the D.C. handgun ban and the city’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,” Porter wrote.
Here is what Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his defense of the Second Amendment in the Heller Case: “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute.”
I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask again, why are left-wing Democrats determined to keep law-abiding citizens defenseless?
Maybe it’s their fear they can’t totally control us if we “cling to our Bibles and guns,” you reckon?
Maybe that’s why they consistently and relentlessly attack Christians and Christianity and lawful gun ownership under the Second Amendment.
They want total control of the masses, and that’s all there is to it. They consider the masses ignorant, they know better, and they will tell us how to live or else.
But, they will never get either out of our hands – our Bibles or our guns – without defeating us in a bloody civil war, and they know that’s impossible.