I have not commented on the Sandy Hook event. I confess that I did not look at the ‘news’ reports for about 10 days. It seemed that each hour another ‘revelation’ was in the news which turned out to be as erroneous as the one it replaced. Unfortunately the news media appears to be in the business of making news instead of reporting news which only adds to the confusion. But I digress.
Sandy Hook was certainly a national attention grabbing tragedy. As with most tragedies of any size, be it a hurricane, snow storm, or mass murder, the ‘experts’ trot out their solution based not on the facts but on a predetermined agenda. Certainly the Obama administration has followed this path to solution through executive orders and the Feinstein bill in the Senate. Even the administration is not unified and/or knowledgeable of either the content of the bill in the Senate or the content of the executive orders, e.g. Biden suggesting that a shotgun would be a good home defense weapon when they are specifically mentioned for control in the Feinstein bill.
Published analysis of the Bill and executive orders suggests that if implemented Sandy Hook would not have been prevented. So what is being ‘controlled’ by these executive orders and the Feinstein Bill? Suspicion is that the motive of these government actions is to limit the second amendment either directly or by circumventing Congress. It suggests the goal is to disarm the population.
Certainly there are numerous examples in the ‘free world’ today where the gun control advocates have over a period of time increasingly diminished the gun rights of the population until confiscation was legislated, e.g. Australia, South Africa, and the UK to name three. The results were pretty dramatic in the case of Australia where a significant increase in crime has been experienced much to the surprise of the gun control advocates. Those who can afford the expense build walls around their homes with metal spikes on top to discourage would be home invaders.
When asked in the past why I was not interested in limiting the second amendment I would rhetorically answer that a side arm was lighter than carrying a policeman on my shoulders. Humor aside there are a significant number of court decisions which have set precedents as to the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies. For your further review of this situation I offer the following, I am sure there are more:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)
Here is the link to Warren v. District of Columbia: http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf
This is a particularly troubling decision that should give anyone pause to stop and think. Just read the first few pages to get the idea and feeling for the victims. One can only wonder how they felt with the final court decision.
Basically the police have no legal duty to protect an individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection. Their job is to catch criminals, which is after the fact!
Then to whom falls the job of protecting you, your family and your property? It is your responsibility! Hopefully this is NOT a surprise to you.
Someone kicking in your door or in your house uninvited is NOT there to do you good. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a victim.
At Sandy Hook it took law enforcement 20 minutes to arrive. It is difficult to say what would have happened if there had been an armed staff member at Sandy Hook. But since Sandy Hook there have been at least 3 incidents at schools with guns at which there was an armed staff member or law officer. In these 3 specific cases violence was very limited. These cases received minor reporting in the media. It does not fit their agenda!
It is said that gun control advocates may not believe in God or guns, but when someone is in their house in the middle of the night, the betting is that they will call someone with a gun, and pray they arrive in time.
William J. Rutherford.
|
|