Consider the following:
When I posted this to Facebook, it elicited the following response:
“I find it pretty insulting to the men and women of law enforcement and the military when you use this argument. Do you really feel like if the government asked them to they would ever put the average citizen in a situation where they would have to defend themselves with lethal force? If you do, then you have absolutely no respect for our Law Enforcement Officers who have sworn to protect you at home or the Soldiers who have sworn to protect you.
I agree with you for the most part on guns, but I find this particular argument to be despicable, especially coming from someone who are members (or retired members) of the very people that are disrespected statements like these.”
Allow me to retort.
This particular argument is at the heart of the Gun Control issue. I chose the picture used very carefully. I could’ve easily used the military or another SWAT unit. I chose the heroic efforts of the Boston PD to illustrate the power of the STATE. When the city was “locked down” it hovered on the brink of martial law if not de facto martial law. All that was missing was a warning that violators would be shot. I chose Boston PD because of the stark contrast of the use of Power and the misuse of Power.
The NAVY motto is currently “A Force for Good”. A truly American sentiment for the use of military power. Another American precedent was that those who wield the power of the State take an oath to defend the Constitution rather than loyalty to any one leader or political party. That being said, there exists a faction of US that will execute that oath in the face of contrary orders of political leaders. I point out at this time the fact that many in law enforcement have stated their refusal to enforce any anti-gun legislation. A little, often overlooked trivia about serving our country is that your are never released from your oath. It is left to the individual to decide how to honor this oath. The dilemma of the German army in World War Two was the Hitler had the military swear an oath of allegiance to him personally. By name. While being opposed to the politics of the Party, the military was honor bound to it by their oath. This was clearly illustrated in the movie “Valkyrie” with Tom Cruise.
The statement in the picture starts out with “If and I do mean IF the country turns into a police state”. I wrote that to reject the response above at the outset. Oppression in America will not come about in a bloody revolution as in 1917 Russia. Liberty in America will die a death of a thousand cuts by leadership wrapped in the Flag. The Founding Fathers insisted that limits to the power of the state be placed in our Constitution. The debate was heated. That’s why the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. “We are not agreeing to this government until safe guards of the individual are in place” sums up the collective opinion. The order of the Rights is not a coincident or result of happenstance.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The federal government cannot dictate which religion I choose or not to choose to follow. The first right that the government cannot revoke is the individual’s right to publicly criticize the action of said government.
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.
Right on its heels, comes the Second Amendment. It allows for the People to defend the First Right by any means possible., In armed conflict if need be. Consider the words “shall not be infringed” carefully. Shall not be, in ANY way infringed. A “well regulated militia” ? This not the National Guard. Please note that the National Guard is used to implement martial law.
It’s the rest of us with guns who will insure the security of a FREE State.
- Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
- Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.
This statement invalidates ANY controls put on the ownership of weapons. If the State has no limits to weapons, the People SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT!. Yes Virginia, it ain’t about duck hunting. Registration of automatic weapons and handguns are very infringements the Bill addresses. This is the Death of a Thousand Cuts I’m talking about. This is why those in power have a priority to take weapons out of the hands of the People. Without this recourse, the People have no way to defend their Right to disagree with Government and are forced (Force being the hallmark of a dictatorship) to accept the actions of the government. To quell the rebellion of 1860, the first thing that Lincoln did was revoke the Bill of Rights.
So this picture was NOT a show of disrespect to the Boston PD. But rather a show of respect to those brave officers who exercise the power of the State by executing their oath of office. That they will not allow the State Police to become the Police State while on their watch.