Gun Control-Demystified

 

by Michael D. Shaw, staff writer

Just as gun control posturing provides feckless politicians with a means of distracting the public from the pressing issues of the day,  it also enables us to see inside the matrix, as the notion of “gun control” is at the nexus of several poorly understood and deliberately distorted precepts of American life.

Case in point, despite the omnipresent “To protect and serve” designations emblazoned on most marked police vehicles, courts at all levels have consistently held that the police have no duty to protect individuals. In a slogan that could have come straight out of George Orwell, the so-called “Public Duty” doctrine states that the police owe a duty to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

In Warren v. District of Columbia, the DC Court of Appeals ruled against Carolyn Warren, even though the aid promised via her 911 call never arrived, the overall conduct of the police was astonishingly incompetent, and she and her roommate were brutalized for 14 hours.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the US Supreme Court ruled against Jessica Gonzales, who claimed that the failure of the Castle Rock, CO police to enforce a restraining order led to the murder of her three children by her estranged husband. She had contacted the police five times on the day of the homicides, pleading for help.

In Ford v. Town of Grafton, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts ruled against Catherine M. Ford, whose protective order against her estranged husband offered no real protection. Indeed, she was advised by the police to procure a gun, but failed to do so. Her former spouse continued to threaten and assault her, leading to her being shot three times and subsequently paralyzed for life.

In Riss v. New York, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled against Linda Riss, who begged for police protection from a former suitor’s violent threats. After all, she was unable to arm herself in New York City at the time. The police failed to prevent an attack in which lye was poured on her face, rendering her blind in one eye, with limited vision in the other. As was pointed out at the time, “By a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”

There are many more such cases, some of which even have police on the scene, still failing to act.

Yet although police neither owe protection, nor may be found liable for a failure to provide it, we have been fed a notion of self-defense, in which the question posed is “Why would anyone need a gun or magazine like that?” The implication being that only police and military (and I guess criminals) should be allowed to have such firearms. The first answer is that the purpose of these weapons IS self-defense, whether used by a civilian, a police officer, or the military. Why is their claim to self-defense more valid than yours, especially since they have no legal duty to protect you? 

It’s quite simple: The police have no duty to protect individual citizens; criminal offenders will not disarm, nor tone down their weapons; yet the government still wants to disarm you. Why? So, you will be more dependent on the government, and they will have yet more control over your life. Gun control has metastasized into total control.

Under such rubrics, and in response to the perceived public concern over rising crime rates, who knows how Draconian it might get? The government might even restrict or suspend certain constitutional rights. Oh wait, they already have.

 

Be Sociable, Share!

3 thoughts on “Gun Control-Demystified”

  1. It was always about “total control”. Even the name used by our DC solons is a lie: Weapons do not need to be controlled. Once put somewhere, they will not be used or even move absent human intervention. It could have more accurately been called “person control” from the beginning but that would have made the slugs nervous. Sounds too Orwellian, even for them…

  2. You’re right. Amazing that with the total control comes no responsibility. BTW, when you look into these cases, you may be surprised that our conservative/strict constructionist judges are generally on the side of denying the claims.

    On an abstract level, they’re correct inasmuch as James Madison had noted that “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” The trouble is that people are paying taxes, but are not getting the expected services. Thus, the courts will never be a remedy, as they are also caught up in the paradox/matrix.

    I’m quite sure that if a case ever arose where many people (ie. the “public”) got screwed in the same way, they would *still* not qualify as “the public,” and the class would lose their case.

Comments are closed.