“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”—U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment.
Years ago, something similar happened to one of my neighbors. Four men in a pickup were dumping a load of trash on his driveway when he apprehended them while carrying his 22 cal. rifle. No shots were fired, but the deputies arrested him and let the men he was holding go.
History demonstrates that citizens in civilized societies do not want the daily responsibility of law enforcement. Neither, do reasonable people want criminal activity to go unchecked. Therefore, the governments established by law-abiding people, employ police officers to apprehend criminals, with a judicial system to determine guilt or innocence, and mete justice to fit the crime.
However, the institution of professional law enforcement does not rightly, negate the individual responsibility to interrupt criminal activity in the process. Neither does having insurance to cover the losses. Too often, law-abiding citizens turn away when they see crime in progress. Perhaps, they think it is not their business. Perhaps, they fear for their own safety, or perhaps, they realize they might be arrested for their efforts.
Criminal investigations, tracking suspects or fugitives, after the fact, and administering justice should be left to the professionals, but when law-abiding citizens fear arrest, for intervening to stop criminal activity in the making, the right to keep and bear arms is effectively thwarted, and just as when guns are outlawed, the criminals win.
With rare exception, our law enforcement officers do all they can to stop crime and apprehend criminals, but they cannot be everywhere at once, and they must enforce the laws equally when they do arrive. To force them to arrest citizens that try to stop crime gives the criminals great advantage. No reasonable person advocates “open season” on criminals or anyone else, but when a firearm is used to apprehend a criminal in the act, and no one is injured, the law should recognize the individual responsibility to resist crime.
It seems our lawmakers are more interested in stopping the use of firearms than they are in stopping crime. If they can't take our guns, they will take away the right to use them.
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment