Bang, bang you're law-abidingly dead
We humans haven't changed radically since we quit dragging our knuckles, stood upright, and began cohabitation with one another. There are good and bad people, gentle and cruel people, predators and prey. Peruse any newspaper or view television news on any day and you will see that this is true...
Which is why I am very concerned about a powerful coalition of political activists, organizations, and media. If they have their way, they will ensure that all American citizens are banned from firearms possession. This will occur regardless of protection guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America's Second Amendment.
Think it can't happen? Am I the only one who has followed the wrong-headed decisions rendered by the Supreme Court these many years? Were Roe v Wade, Kelo, or Hamdan merely lunatic aberrations determined by a distracted majority of justices who were simply having a bad few days? Hardly. In the latter two cases, the Court flagrantly disregarded the Constitution's proscriptions and in the former, based its finding on context not even found within the Constitution.
This is not judicial interpretation of the law. This is unconstitutional lawmaking from the bench.
Let us suppose that the Democratic Party, the United Nations, the horde of anti-gun nuts, disarmament organizations, and the Drive-By Media get their way and a federal gun ban is somehow, some way passed by Congress and then found constitutional by the Court. What would this mean to law-abiding citizens? I must qualify with law-abiding because such a ban will not matter one whit to lawbreakers. Why? Because over 30,000 firearms laws are already on the books throughout America and they mean nothing to criminals, for Pete's sake. What is one more law going to do to prevent lawbreakers from obtaining firearms?
Zip. Zero. Nada. Nothing. But you'll obey them, won't you, Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver?
I want you to review all of the states currently imposing near-total gun bans or harshly-restrictive gun possession laws on their residents and tell me with a straight face that it deters violent crime. Tell me about New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Massachusetts, California...I could go on and on but what's the point?
Here's the point: 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population -- New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. -- and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns. Furthermore, among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
You law-abiding but unarmed people living in those states must, as a last-gasp resort, depend upon your law enforcement agencies to protect you from violent assault or murder. Good luck with that, and here's why:
Just last year, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed the ruling that police departments have no responsibility to protect anyone, even if the victim had a restraining order against the offender.
Read it again and let it sink in.
Law enforcement cannot and will not stop crimes from happening or protect someone prior to the actual commission of a crime. This is an indisputable fact that has been upheld countless times in courts at every level. It is the individual's responsibility to defend person and property -- it is also a fact that NOBODY is going to do it for you.
This profoundly mistaken belief compels me to state that should you be murdered, I'm sure it will be a huge consolation to your law-abiding, unarmed, immortal soul if law enforcement ever arrests the person who takes your life.