It has been said in recent times that, despite America's long and colorful history with guns over more than 200 years, we are now in the 21st Century and so guns no longer have a place in society. Right! - go tell that to the criminal fraternity! In fact, with the scourge of drug oriented crime and an overall criminal disregard for public safety there was never in fact a time more needy of the armed citizen. It has however become tedious to the point of monotony to try and explain that the disarmed law abiding citizen becomes nothing more than a potential victim.
The well worn phrase "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws have guns" has been beaten to death within gun owning circles and yet, no one who wants guns banned seems to get the message. The conclusion has to be the rather obvious one that, gun control is - in fact - only about control and little else. Subjugation of the masses.
There is an answer we require from the gun grabbers - and that is, just how they plan to remove guns from all levels of society - including the bad guys. A criminal is by default a law breaker - he/she is not mindful of statutes and restrictions, ergo - they will always find a way to be armed by any means they choose and this will often mean firearms. The supply will never be exhausted despite any and all legislative measures.
Lets us revisit yet again the myth that the police are there to protect the public. Sorry - it is indeed a myth and as court cases have proved, law enforcement has no obligation to protect the individual. "Protect and serve" - is for some (?many) taken way too literally whereas it only means that as public servants the law enforcement organizations are actually there to maintain (as best they can) an overall peaceable environment. "Home Security" companies trade on people's fears and promise fast action at the punch of a button but where is the real protection? Only once more the effectiveness or not of a fast law enforcement response time - after the event.
Catching crooks is fine - we want them out of society but does this rearguard action help the victims? Usually not, as the attacks and robberies have already taken place - "shutting the stable door, long after the horse has bolted"!
Let us look at a phrase - "for the greater good" - and this is referring to the analysis of legal firearms ownership with regard to many (over) reported accidents and abuses - let's expand. It may help to use simple example figures, so consider this....
Out of 100 million legal gun owners, 100 perhaps go "off the rails" and commit either a crime or are complicit in permitting accidents leading to death - this is 0.0001% (jumped on by the media!). Perhaps careless gun security and poor firearms education, leading to child injuries, death and even suicides that choose the convenience of a gun. Can anyone honestly say though that this small percentile representation of the gun owning community is enough to slam the total majority and deprive them of their means of self protection? "For the greater good" is the sensible approach to legitimate firearms ownership - the logical acquiescence to the near total majority ... not some punitive law making to smear the masses with the sins of the few and remove their rights.
All those who might wish to see the populace disarmed should consider seeing themselves in a situation where they are accosted by an armed criminal. Whether it be home invasion and robbery, simple mugging or even a rape attack - it matters not - but what recourse would they have? There is a common recommendation made by Police Chiefs which is "do what the bad guy tells you". So let us get this right ....... you are looking down the barrel of a gun, and are told to hand over all your valuables or even be the subject of physical and sexual abuse and you obey all commands. The bad guy however has zero regard for human life and wants no witnesses left behind and so - "BANG" ... he solves his problem. You are history and another statistic!
There are many who like to think that "hunting" is the only area of firearms ownership that matters and so will freely slam the handguns and semi auto rifles - forgetting that the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights states quite simply that we have a right that is not to be infringed to own firearms, any firearms. (We now have a result from the Heller VS US case on June 26th 2008, which at least, up to a point, confirms the individual right but still seems to retain flexibility with regard to "regulation").
The United States has many problems not least of which is illegal immigration and a significant number of those individuals are not aiming to become good solid U.S. citizens. Instead they find a life of crime works much better, in particular when supported by drug trafficking and selling. We have indigenous gangs, for example the "Bloods" and "Crips" and then too MS13 adds further to the burden of high crime - to them guns are bread and butter and no laws will limit their acquisition and usage, ever.
So, are we seriously going to think that any government edict limiting or banning firearms is going to affect these groups in the least? To think it would be so is nievity in the extreme. But this is seemingly what "they" want to achieve - the disarmament of the honest Joe.
Even without any Constitution or Second Amendment - it should be plain to all sensible thinking people that self defence is in and of itself an innate human right. Is the honest and hard working individual supposed to "suck it up" as seems now to be the case in the UK and Australia ... with no recourse to answering in kind? Just put hands in the air and wait for a bullet? We even see the victims as being prone to prosecution should they even try to help themselves and all the while the bad guys get away with it! Something is wrong here!
Where is true justice these days? It is often biased against the victim and leaves the criminal open for little more than a slap on the wrist. Add to this the over crowding of penitentiaries and the early releases of crooks that know of only one thing - recidivism. We, the honest citizens, are potentially always under attack and yet the anti gun zealots would have us disarmed. This is not logical or even constitutional.
For as long as the fight means we, the law abiding gun owners, can remain armed and carry our means of protection then the balance of the odds can remain vaguely favorable. Remove our rights and we will see a sea change in victimization and an imbalance of human rights. Welcome to the rest of the world!