I was reading a story today over at the York Daily Review, a Pennsylvania news site, and figured it’s about time I wrote another post to put some more reality on the internet. I keep pretty close tabs on discussions seeking to limit my right to keep and bear arms, especially when the conversation calls for a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment that
grants recognizes my God-given right to self protection.
Steve Zorbaugh, a liberal attorney in Pennsylvania, argues that since the Supreme Court ruled that individuals have the right to own firearms that the problem is with the Second Amendment and it needs to be repealed. Yes, like most liberty- and Constitution-hating liberals, Mr. Zorbaugh wants to destroy the parts he disagrees with.
The first reasoning he presents is that out of the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, the word “gun” doesn’t appear even once! Neither does “liberalism,” “progressives,” or “leftists” so I don’t think they should exist either. What Zorbaugh fails to understand (or maybe just wants to ignore for convenience) is that guns weren’t invented until over a thousand years after the Bible was written. Never mind that a liberal using the Bible as a defense is in and of itself a little ironic seeing as how they’re trying to remove God from society.
Leaving all that aside, the Bible DOES recognize our need for self defense. In Romans 13:4 Paul counsels that we are not to bear our sword (re: gun) in vain. He says that those that do good works have nothing to worry about, but for those that would hurt us we are free to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
In Luke, chapter 22, Jesus tells Peter (who will later betray him) “he that hath no
sword gun, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” This was approximately 35 AD when this verse was written.
This is important to mention because Zorbaugh said that “there’s nothing about a gun’s nature that calls for the kind of golden-calf homage many in America pay it.” It’s nothing but a “killing machine.” If this is true, why do police carry guns? Could it be that the mere knowledge that a police is packing heat prevents many from just blowing them off? Isn’t a sword no different than a gun in those respects? What good is a sword except to kill? It doesn’t make a very good letter opener and have you ever tried buttering unleavened bread with it?
Zorbaugh argues that our founding fathers needed guns to stay alive and that once we had attained our independence, guns were no longer needed. He says, “the justification for gun ownership that existed in 1787 no longer exists today.” Never mind that in 1787 we were already 11 years past when we needed them, right? We gained our independence in 1776, not 1787.
For a lawyer, I’m a little surprised that he isn’t a little more educated. Or maybe he is educated, but thinks the rest of us are not. His argument, which, by the way at least one liberal blogger seems to have swallowed, that every two years since the ratification of our Constitution we have peacefully “overthrown our government” at the ballot box without guns ignores much of our history. He does recognize the Civil War, errantly calling it the War of Southern Aggression when it was the South defending itself against an encroaching government.
If Zorbaugh had his way in 1787, Americans wouldn’t have been able to defend themselves against the Native Americans (no, we did NOT initiate every violent encounter with native Americans), Mexico, and others throughout our history. As a matter of fact, the 2nd Amendment is the SOLE reason why the North was able to win during the Civil War. May citizens with privately owned weapons were required to use them during the war.
The problem here is that liberals don’t understand that regardless of the Second Amendment, humans are entitled to defend themselves. Before there were guns, there were swords and bows and arrows. In early history, these were the tools used for self defense and hunting. Likewise, humans today are entitled to the tools necessary for self preservation. No government has the right or authority to tell me I can’t defend myself or hunt for my own food to remain alive. What I choose to hunt or defend myself with is my own business. If I want to shoot a pig or deer with a so-called “assault rifle,” I can do that. Who is Zorbaugh or anyone else to tell me I have to use a specific rifle? Personally, I love shooting pigs and coyotes with my SKS, which uses the same 7.62mm round as an AK – both considered “assault rifles.”
Zorbaugh then gives us another lame reason why common citizens shouldn’t have guns: the fact that we have over a million law enforcement people in America. Naturally, he doesn’t address that the United States of today is five times larger than the United States of 1787. Interestingly, I can turn this argument against Zorbaugh as well. There are one million law enforcement officers out there that are armed. Surely, every single one of them is a straight shooting, noble, and honorable public official doing EVERYTHING right. Not a single law enforcement officer would EVER abuse their authority and oppress the citizens they are sworn to protect. Naw, this is America, right Zorbaugh?!
Let’s assume that one half of one percent of those million peace officers are corrupt. That means that there are 5,000 corrupt police officers somewhere out there locked and loaded with citizen-funded weapons and ammunition. How does a defenseless society protect against that? Now, consider this: the United States is comprised of over 3.79 million square miles. That means that there is one law enforcement officer for every 4 square miles. Of course, those million law enforcement officer need to be on duty 24 hours per day, every day of the year to cover those 4 square miles. We know that isn’t happening, so even if the force was split equally in 12-hour shifts, you now have one officer per every eight square miles. But, few departments have 12-hour shifts for all it’s officers. So, using an 8-hour shift we have one officer for every 12 square miles. These numbers don’t account for leaves and time off. It doesn’t account for the fact that many of those million officers aren’t beat cops patrolling to ensure our safety.
I think you know where I’m going with that. But, let’s use the Utopian vision that 100% of the police force is on duty 100% of the time. This would ensure our safety, right? Wrong. In 2005, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling that citizens do not have “a property interest in police enforcement.” In other words, it’s not law enforcement’s job to protect you. In the case at hand, Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez, the Court ruled that even when there is a restraining order against a citizen, the police don’t have to enforce it or protect the target of the person to whom the order is given.
So, if it’s not the police’s responsibility to ensure my safety, whose is it Mr. Zorbaugh? Obviously, it’s my own responsibility.
Zorbaugh argues that instead of an amendment to guarantee our right to bear arms we should have a different amendment that recognizes our “right to safety.” Because we all know that THAT would end all crime and ensure our safety.
The fact is that gun ownership and an armed citizenry stops more crime each day than our one million law enforcement officers do. Every word in that last sentence is a SEPARATE news story about how an armed citizen protected himself WITHOUT a million officers. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
In summation, I hope you enjoy the following public service announcement: