Officer.com is a web site for cops. No, not the seat-warming Police Chiefs of America type cops, but actual working cops who strive to protect us. One of them, Ralph Mroz, makes a lot of sense:
It is inconceivable to me that the founding fathers, who had just thrown off a government by force and by arms - a government that was hardly totalitarian by today’s standards, did not have this thought in mind when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in the second of ten constitutional amendments (the ten amendments that compose the Bill of Rights are not randomly ordered).
An Even More Fundamental Right
A right that is so fundamental, so common-sensical, so viscerally obvious, so long-established, so humanistic, and so necessary for a just society that it needed no enumeration in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the right to self-defense. It would no more occur to the founding fathers (or anyone of the time) that a right to self-defense needed to be recognized than a “right to eat” needed to be. And yet today we have arrived at the point where the right to self-defense is under attack (no pun intended) from seemingly every quarter.
I urge you to read the whole thing. By the way, there is no contradiction between the two paragraphs. The first explains the thinking of our founding fathers when they incorporated the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights. The second; the fact that they shouldn’t have needed to.
4 Responses to “What He Said, Part II”
Leave a Reply
(Be sure to answer the anti-spam question!)
on 09 Nov 2009 at 9:26 pm # Harvey
If you go to the comments section after the article on Officer.com, you’ll find writers in agreement with the author. Unfortunately, all too often the gun control groups stand shoulder to shoulder with police chiefs and sheriffs during news conferences, thus giving the impression that most officers side with them. Many of these officials are political appointees whose future depends on their following “the party line”. In my almost 30 years of law enforcement experience I have found the overwhelming majority of rank and file cops and deputies support the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves, including the use of firearms. It’s not the citizen who has taken the time and effort to receive a carry license that’s a threat, it’s the criminals, who by definition, simply ignore any laws or regulations, as well as any sense of caring toward their fellow man. And if these politicians, who usually have armed bodyguards, cared anything for their constituents, gun control would mean punishing criminals, not limiting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families.
on 09 Nov 2009 at 11:24 pm # gator
That was excellent!
on 10 Nov 2009 at 5:06 am # Christian Louboutin Sale
Shoes that are really beautiful and stylish, and plenty more boutique related products. So what are you waiting for? Just get online today and you will see what we are talking about.
on 10 Nov 2009 at 5:25 pm # Mike S
Something that’s easy to forget about rights and the Constitution - the entire Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution is a contract of enumerated powers.
The Second Amendment is unnecessary because Congress was given no authority to restrict firearms ownership. No authority to legislate in matters of speech, religion, nor hundreds of other areas in which it now meddles.
We need to move the debate back to the enumerated powers, from the slippery slope of which rights are enumerated in the first 8, or left unlisted but protected by the 10th.