Why citizens must own and carry firearms

13 Jul

Why citizens must own and carry firearms

At 2 a.m. on Sunday, 27-year-old Alan Senitt was murdered. Senitt, an aspiring British politician, Jewish activist and Democratic volunteer, was walking home a female companion in the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C., when he was allegedly accosted by Christopher Piper, 25, Jeffrey Rice, 22, and a 15-year-old. Piper, who had a gun, immediately grabbed Senitt’s female companion and pulled her away to rape her. Rice, who had stated earlier in the night that he was desperate to “cut” someone, slit Senitt’s throat. The three thugs then hopped into a getaway car driven by Olivia Miles, 26, and sped off into the night.

Only hours later, the police arrested the four suspects. Apparently, two of the suspects matched the descriptions of perpetrators of two recent robberies, and the police had already obtained an address for those two suspects. So why did Alan Senitt have to die in order for these animals to be arrested? “I can give you my 100 percent word everything was done within the confines of the law,” Lt. Robert Glover of the police department’s violent crimes branch told the Washington Post. “We cannot make an arrest without probable cause.”

Now the police have their probable cause. Rice was found with Senitt’s ID and the woman’s cell phone on his person, and his shirt covered in Senitt’s blood. The suspects are in custody. And Alan Senitt is dead.

Our Constitution mandates that citizens may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. One of the requirements of due process of law is that arrests not be arbitrary. It is likely true that the D.C. police did everything within the confines of the law to pursue the suspects. What the murder of Alan Senitt demonstrates is that the confines of law cost lives when citizens are unable to protect themselves.

Law enforcement is by its very nature reactive. The police cannot arrest people before they have committed any crimes, a la “Minority Report.” Citizens should not expect that the police will be able to prevent all crime – there must always be an initial crime for police to prevent subsequent crimes. Until Ted Bundy murdered his first victim, the police had nothing for which to arrest him; at the very most, law enforcement could only have saved Bundy’s later victims. Someone always has to suffer before law enforcement can get involved.

Citizens are left with two choices. They can either rely on the kindness of criminals, or they can protect themselves. The choice is obvious. Yet liberal cities continue to rely on the kindness of criminals.

Washington, D.C., is famous for its insanely restrictive anti-gun laws. It has been illegal since 1976 to have an assembled and loaded firearm, even in your home, in D.C. Carrying a handgun for self-protection is against the law. For some reason, Democrats seem to be unable to explain the dramatic 72 percent rise in the D.C. homicide rate between 1976 and 2001, even as the national homicide rate plummeted 36 percent over the same period. Certainly, Christopher Piper had no problem carrying a gun and using it to rape Senitt’s female companion. Criminals, it seems, engage in crime. And law-abiding citizens pay the price.

The basis for every right in our Constitution is the right to self-preservation. John Locke, the founders’ favorite non-biblical philosopher, explained that if a government “endeavour[s] to grasp themselves … an absolute power over the lives, liberties and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty.”

When a government seizes citizens’ ability to protect themselves, that government becomes a usurper. It is for this reason that the Second Amendment guarantees both the individual right to self-defense and the communal right to fight any deprivation of the right to self-defense.

Would Alan Senitt have bought a gun for self-defense? The question is irrelevant in D.C.; Senitt had no choice in the matter. As it stands in D.C., only criminals have the right to choose. And the police can only respond to 911 calls.

My Comments: I love it when alarmed citizens start demanding more police on the streets. Police are not responsible for your personal safety. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. The police department is there for the solving of crimes, traffic patrol and apprehension of criminals, not for crime prevention. You are responsible for your own safety. The police come AFTER you’ve been robbed, raped, murdered.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Why citizens must own and carry firearms”

  1. asharak July 14, 2006 at 8:04 pm #

    It’s a double-edged sword. As much as I dislike America’s gun culture, I know you can’t really depend on the police to protect you either.

  2. docwho88 July 15, 2006 at 3:32 pm #

    It’s funny, too, when the DC police go on the news and speak out against individual gun rights. My dad’s position might be the best: “Fine”, he says, “then make them be held personally responsible for all violent crime in DC. See how quickly THAT changes their minds.”

  3. xc0py_catx July 17, 2006 at 12:34 pm #

    Did you read the paper the last few days. I read an article in the sun yesterday but I don’t know what day it was from.
    Regardless, there was an article about a man that had committed several rapes and his dna was on file. He got arrested again for something like robbery or drug charges, I’m not 100% sure and they’re supposed to dna test every felon and run them through their system against other unknown samples. Well for whatever reason, this guy went to jail for nearly 2 years and they never tested him, he came out and raped and murdered several elderly women just like he had previously. I think that’s probably a bigger failure of police and the system than in your article. They can’t stop something that they really can’t foresee, however the guy from my article…would’ve been foreseen as a future criminal and shit could’ve been prevented.
    Just my 2cents 🙂

    • bboyneko July 17, 2006 at 1:27 pm #

      Yes, but again, you are STILL responsible for your own personal safety. Wether it’s an escaped psycopath, or a released criminal that should not have been released, or a ravenous wild bear on the rampage..YOU are the first line of defense..none of us have 24 hour personal security escort unless we are rich.
      Once again I state, police come AFTER you’ve been raped, robbed, eaten by a ravenous bear, etc.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: