Statistics
Sep
2
Why do Dems want gun bans in disaster areas?
September 2, 2008 | Tagged civilian disarmament, crime-ridden inner cities, disasters, Gustav, Katrina, New Orleans, Obama | 1 Comment
Hurricane Gustav missed New Orleans. Remember what happened during Katrina? Following the storm, some law enforcement officers stayed home, some courageous officers continued to operate from home, and some mismanaged cops disarmed honest citizens.
Fortunately, since those disgraceful episodes of civilian harassment, laws have been passed at the federal and state levels to increase protection for the fundamental right of Americans to self-defense, even in the face of natural and man-made disasters. (See first comment and response by Dave Kopel.)
When you think about it, when do citizens most need the ability to defend themselves? When the police aren’t available to protect them! Even under normal circumstances, the best possible police response times are unlikely to interrupt a crime in progress, especially an assault. As someone once truly said, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” Following Katrina, in some areas, there was no police response, at all. It’s not rocket science, is it?
As a general rule, Democrats still want to ban handguns, at least in the inner city crime centers that they perpetuate with their dependence-building social programs and draconian gun laws. (Talk about disaster areas!) Why? Because gun crime continues in those inner cities, despite bans and restrictions. Dem Presidential Candidate Barack H. Obama has stated that local authorities, like the oh-so-liberal D. C. City Council, should dictate gun ownership or lack thereof in their jurisdictions.
Logic would seem to dictate that disaster zones and inner cities would both be places where honest citizens would benefit from a high level of individual protection. Logic, however, is apparently not a big issue in the Left-wing mindset.
If protection of law-abiding citizens is not the reason for the Democrat emphasis on gun control, you have to ask yourself about the real reason behind their “concern.” What social “changes” are they planning that are so terrible that they fear armed resistance from honest citizens? Then again, I could just be paranoid. What do you think?
Def Mech
Comments
1 Comment so far
It’s clear logic – with no police civilians need a means of protection – and demonstrated results – gun control does not decrease crime (ever) – so simple naivety?
NickyCheese’s last blog post..The Freedom Museum and freedom: “there is no right answer”