Citizen Disarmament

By Nathan Barton

One by one, the twenty-two (or more) contestants for the Democratic beauty pageant 2020 seek desperately for ways to distance themselves from the pack. Like beauty queens getting themselves into skimpier and skimpier bikinis, the contenders strip away more and more of the liberties once held sacred by Americans.

Most recently Conscript Father Cory Booker has taken the lead in stripping away human rights, with his campaign plank to “tighten up” gun laws by hook or by crook. He would require a license (including background checks, psychiatric evaluations, and training) to buy or own a gun – even if you already own one.  And limit purchases to one per month, paying for it with new taxes on guns (and no doubt, other things).  He claims that this is what most Americans want.  That this is what law enforcement needs and wants.  That this is reason to elect him Massa.

Oddly enough, I recently read some things answering a question raised by an anti-gunner (hoplophobe or hoploclast or both).

Do American police officers wish that the citizens were not armed as they go about their daily patrols?

There are, of course, jack-booted thugs and some real scumbags in police and deputy uniforms – in every state of the Union.  There are those who relish the power they can exercise, the immunity from many laws, and the way they are treated by many citizens.  But surprisingly, most – even a majority – of law enforcement do NOT want the public disarmed. [hardly a libertarian or anarchist website] conducted a survey of 15,000 working American police officers in 2013. Among their results:

91% of respondents believed that a ban on “assault weapons” would have little or no effect on violent crime.

95% felt that a ban on “high capacity” magazines holding in excess of ten cartridges would have no effect on crime.

91% felt that responsible citizens with no criminal records should be allowed to carry concealed weapons if they desired.

86% believed that the presence of armed citizens would have reduced casualties in recent mass shootings.

On a scale of 1 to 5, most officers who responded scored 4 or 5 on the importance of armed citizens in deterring crime.

Interesting data, eh?  Now maybe in six years, especially given the hardsell Moms Against Liberty and Mayors Against Freedom have been making, cops’ ideas have changed.  But with such high numbers, I kinda doubt it.

Another response to the same question raised some very good points, from another cop:

[Do police officers wish that the citizens were not armed…?] Absolutely not. Police cannot be everywhere- nor would an American citizen want them to be. The idea behind citizens owning and responsibly using guns is to protect themselves and when necessary – others from evil-doers.

There are hundreds of stories of average citizens using guns against perpetrators when police cannot be at the scene. Police are part of the government and the government is not a kind benefactor. Do not look to the government for answers. Be wise and responsible as a citizen.

Clearly a more liberty-loving individual, she reminds us that the last thing we want is to be dependent on agents of government for anything we can possibly avoid.  Recent history in Commonwealth nations reveals that crime inevitably increases as ordinary people are more and more disarmed. It is merely human nature.

Just as it is human nature that the two-legged predators grow more bold as their victims are less and less likely to be armed and able to defend themselves. We see this especially in the blood-soaked streets of Latin America, and the great urban areas of North America.

This doesn’t stop Booker (or most of his sibling panderers) from calling for the next stages of universal disarmament, of course.  Nor does it stop the progress made in too many places.  Consider what Vin Suprynowicz writes about in one of his latest columns at Firearms News, How the gungrabbers grabbed Nevada. Colorado, New Mexico, and other so-called purple states are seeing similar events.

It CAN happen in a state near you.  No matter that more and more states are going open- and concealed-carry without permits (but still have dozens if not hundreds of unconstitutional “laws” on the books). Never mind that we have a half-dozen recent examples of where someone (civilian or off-duty LEO) intervened and saved lives. Never mind that at least some courts are making (a tiny bit of) sense on our liberty to defend ourselves.  The controllers are not stopping.

Are we prepared to resist? Or do we just give up? That choice is ours, not theirs.


About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Citizen Disarmament

  1. enn ess says:

    Every single weapons and firearm restriction law ever turned into law has had the sole purpose of eliminating firearm ownership from the citizen and disarming them. EVERY single one of them. And that goes back to English Common Law days. With rare exception, only the landed gentry were allowed ownership of firearms, to prevent the poaching of the “Kings deer and fowl”….. There mindset has not changed in almost 1,000 years. And surprise surprise, our so called “modern” thought police have reverted to the same old logic…. Sheeesh, talk about dumb as a bag-o-hammers…..


  2. Darkwing says:

    I have to disagree: the Gestapo and most elected people do not want the civilians armed. This way they can control the people. I have been told by a lot of Gestapo, they do not want the civilians carrying weapons.


    • TPOL Nathan says:

      I assume that you are referring to law enforcement as “the Gestapo,” but all I am doing is reporting what one website which is strongly pro-police is saying about what the police themselves are saying, in a fairly well-documented and scientific survey. I cannot account for how many of those police are lying, or whether the site itself is accurately reporting the results. At the same time, I’m not sure what they would gain by doing so.

      I know a fair number of police officers, and have various levels of patience and respect for them. I do know some that, as they have told you, do not want mundanes armed. But I do know quite a few who believe that it is perfectly okay and even preferable to have them armed. I do know that it varies quite a bit by location – not just state but county and municipalities. The police are divided, and are not a solid block.

      As for elected people, again, I do not think that it is “most” in ALL states that do not want people armed. If it were, we would not see constitutional carry and constitutional concealed carry in places like Vermont and Wyoming, or South Dakota. Yes, there are many, and in some states they are clearly the majority: California, Nevada, Illinois, and many others. But it is not that way everywhere. A recent example of that is how many sheriffs (elected people) in Colorado have taken a stand on the red-flag laws that the majority in the General Assembly (also elected people) passed. They are divided.

      States, as independent nations, even if kowtowing to FedGov demands, are each very different. Even neighboring states. And within the states, we find tremendous differences between regions, counties, and smaller local governments. That is a point that Vin and I have both made numerous times.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s