"Everytown for Gun Safety" Inadvertently Creates Pro-firearm Ad...

There is a good chance that you have seen this disturbing ad:

The intended purpose of this ad is to illustrate that many women are killed by an intimate partner and demonstrate the need for more gun control - specifically, to put pressure on legislators to support the newly introduced Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2014, which would force states to confiscate the firearm of any person under a restraining order.

Instead, this ad serves to illustrate what those of us in the Pro-Second Amendment community have been saying for years:  taking away one's right to their own defense protects no one - particularly women.

First, it illustrates that a restraining order is just a piece of paper with no real legal authority.  The Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock v Gonzales, states that police are not obligated to enforce a restraining order and that "… the Due Process Clause does not "requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."

Second, it illustrates that, when motivated, there is nothing to prevent a bad guy from obtaining a weapon.

Third, it illustrates the adage, "when second count, police are minutes away."  In the narrative illustrated by this ad, in the time it takes for the woman to call 911 and begin to answer the questions of the operator, the estranged husband has already gained access to the house, pulled his firearm, and, presumable, pulled the trigger.  The average 911 response time in the town in which I live is 18 minutes; in other cities that time has exceeded 25 minutes, and in rural areas response times regularly exceed 45 minutes.

Finally, the ad demonstrates the conclusion reached by the majority in Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole." 

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

 Everytown has, with this ad, done an admirable job explaining the pro-Second Amendment position on the necessity to provide for one's own protection.

Dr. Ben Carson For President...

I received an email today from runbenrun.org, an organization set up with the purpose of drafting Dr. Ben Carson to run for the presidency in 2016.  This is an email I sent to the organization explaining why, at this moment, I cannot support a Carson candidacy:

John,

In many ways, I am in favor of Dr. Carson running for president.  In fact, I STRONGLY supported the idea of drafting him to run for president.

Then I heard him give his stance on the Second Amendment; it is unsupportable.

This is a transcript from the Glenn Beck Show less than a month ago:

Dr. Carson: "Uh, guns, there's a reason for the Second Amendment. People DO have the right to have weapons. With this argument that's been going on, the way we solve it is we ask what is each side afraid of, and then we address it that way."

Glenn Beck: "Do I have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon?"

Dr. Carson: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it." (emphasis added)

Dr. Benjamin Carson On Gun Control: "It Depends On Where You Live" | RealClearPolitics

Sorry, but I have to agree with Dana Loesch on this one. If Dr. Carson decides to run for President, his stance on the Second Amendment is a deal breaker. My right to own and carry firearms is a Constitutional right that is not up for compromise because someone is afraid of my exercise of that right, and frankly, Dr. Carson does not have the right to decide WHERE I may own a semi-automatic firearm, either.

Our Second Amendment rights are non-negotiable.  We already have too many politicians in Washington who are out to dismantle those rights, and Dr. Carson's willingness to consider possible limitations on those rights based on A) the fears of those who have been brainwashed to think that firearms are evil and B) where HE perceives it proper for someone to own a particular class of firearm based on his own fear regarding the potential of someone stealing it from me is something to which he will need to give SERIOUS reconsideration.

As long as he holds this stance, there are too many who will not even consider voting for him.

I'm one of them.

Sincerely,