We gave constituted our government by delegating to them certain powers that relate to crime, primarily the law enforcement agencies that flow from those constitutions. Among those are the state, county and local police as well as the necessary federal agencies needed to enforce federal laws.
However, in delegating the power to enforce laws we at no time prohibited ourselves from acting to prevent the violation of the law. We simply established professional groups to do the job full time. At no time did we surrender the power to only the government.
It is part of the law that a person who fails to report his knowledge of a felony before, during or after the fact without good cause is liable to prosecution. We obligate ourselves to be part of the process.
Yet we often hear that we do not need guns because the police exist in total disregard of the fact the police are under no obligation to provide protection. The police are primarily to find the perpetrator after the crime has been committed. The standard TV show depicts the police much better than the movies where they are always at the right place and time when the action begins.
No one expects Sargeant Friday to protect them.
So where does protection come from? If we are not to become passive victims of crime and maybe to live to report it later then we are responsible for our own defense and protection. As what applies to us applies to our neighborhoods we are also responsible for them.
And the police are not adverse to that in the least. They promote Neighborhood Watch Groups. They often give free marksmanship courses or at least freely give out the recommended places to get good and affordable courses.
Contrary to what the senior police officials have to say to keep their jobs, the rest are very much in favor of the armed citizen taking responsibility for themselves and their neighborhoods.
That the citizens, you and me, have an obligation to protect ourselves and our neighborhood is no more in question than that we have the obligation of national defense as part of the militia. That some would deny the means of providing the means of that protection, that is the same guns the police use, does not alleviate the obligation. The only difference is that after guns are prohibited we are limited to the use of harsh language in fulfilling that obligation.
Thus again the purpose of the gun laws is the disarmament of the victims not of the criminals. When we can not obtain a gun without violating the law that will make no difference to those who have a gun for the purpose of making breaking the law easier. When a person steals a getaway car the crime to be committed makes car theft the least of the intended crimes. The same too with illegal gun possession.
Most states have a rarely applied law of a mandatory five years for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime. The mere illegal possession of a gun generally has a lesser penalty save in the crime capitals of the country. Of course the crime capitals are those which almost never enforce laws against mere possession or possession in the commission laws.
However for the citizen defending himself, defense is not a crime but gun possession is. And when there is only one crime involved there are no lesser charges. The victim will be prosecuted for defending himself in an effective manner as was Bernie Goetz.
Thus the conclusion that gun bans are victim disarmament laws is inescapable. If the so called assault weapons that were recently banned are so effective are they not then the one most useful in self defense? Why should thier procurement be limited only to criminals while punishing only the victim for their possession?
As the existence of the police does not eliminate the obligation of self defense it certainly can not take away the right to self defense. And with this obligation comes the right to clean up your neighborhood if it starts going downhill. That means the obligation to hustle the bums and the teeagers off of the streets at night just as the police do it in the "better" neighborhoods.
Doing so at the beginning prevents the neighborhood from continuing to degrading to a a haven for drugs and prostitution and the crimes that come with it.
And if a neighborhood has already gone that far and if calls to the police achieve no response then it is incumbent upon the residents to clean up the neighborhood themselves. And any government that takes away the means to do that while permitting it to happen has lost the right to govern. Any government that contributes to the situation with half way houses and welfare houses has lost the power to govern.
This is our country. This is our government. And we have the absolute and the final say over both the country and the government. No government we have established has the ability to take away that final say save under threat of punishment. And such a government has lost the moral authority to govern.