“A member of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s security detail shot an armed man during an attempted carjacking in the early morning hours, according to court documents,” the Associated Press reported Tuesday. “The deputy pulled out his department-issued gun and shot the man about four times, hitting him in the mouth.”
On the surface, that might seem to many gun owners who advocate for armed defense as further validation, maybe even the feel-good story of the day. In fact, it really is just another example of how the elites disrespect the rights of the citizenry and want their paid enforcers and protectors to be the “Only Ones” with guns.
That’s best illustrated with Sotomayor’s joint dissent with Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in McDonald v. City of Chicago:
“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.”
In other words, they’re saying that a constitution with a prime directive “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” demands the outcome of a predator being able to execute theft victims over citizens being equipped to defend themselves. That’s in spite of a clear “shall not be infringed” mandate on government …
It’s hard to tell if self-styled “progressives” are willfully deluded and really believe the cognitively dissonant crap they spout and impose, or if they know they are frauds and just get off on it. Maybe there’s a spectrum where both states coexist in varying degrees.
Regardless, we’ve seen a similar situation unfold before, in DC, and involving another high-profile Democrat figure, when Secret Service agents assigned to protect Joe Biden’s granddaughter, Naomi, opened fire on three suspects trying to break into an unmarked and unoccupied service vehicle.
She and/or they were not inside. That means they were not protecting lives. They were shooting at human beings to protect property.
What would happen if you or I did that? Does anyone see where they’ve even been disciplined, let alone arrested and prosecuted, with everything that would entail for an “average citizen”?
That’s the crux of the motivation behind documenting the “Only Ones,” a term I coined after a DEA agent informed a classroom full of school kids he was “the only one in this room professional enough” to carry a gun — and then shot himself in the leg trying to holster it. The purpose of this feature has not been to bash cops, but to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly, and exempt/immune from many of the restrictions and repercussions you or I would be hung out to dry over.
It’s good that Sotomayor’s security was able to defend themselves and repel a predator. It’s inexcusable that she won’t admit she has been wrong about our right to do the same, and continues to carry water for the citizen disarmament lobby.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
from https://ift.tt/ThjoagX
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment