The Haves and Have-Nots

By Mark Chesnut, Editor of Freedom First

When escaped killer Charles Smith started poking around a rural Michigan home in his attempt to avoid authorities, he didn’t realize he’d soon be facing a gun – and a free trip back to prison.

But that’s just what happened when an armed Illinois resident chased Smith down and held him at gunpoint until Michigan officers arrived.

A simple case of armed citizen success? No doubt.

Quite possibly the perfect example of elitist anti-gun hypocrisy? You bet!

You see, the Michigan home was actually the vacation home of anti-gun Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who has worked tirelessly for years to keep law-abiding Chicago residents pinned under an arguably unconstitutional – and definitely immoral – handgun ban. And the “armed citizen” who captured the escaped murderer was one of Mayor Daley’s armed bodyguards.

What would have happened if the killer had made his way to Chicago, instead of Michigan, and was caught hanging around a home there? The result would likely have been much different, since law-abiding citizens there are forbidden to keep and bear handguns for defense of self and family, and only criminals roam the streets fully armed.

You see, as the NRA and other pro-rights organizations fight the city’s handgun battle, Daley continues to battle back, with all his resources directed at keeping average citizens unarmed and helpless.

Daley’s blatant hypocrisy on the issue is one seen in many cities where mayors push for tough restrictions on gun ownership by citizens of the city they represent. Daley and other anti-gun mayors know that it can be a jungle out there and they safely travel where they wish without a care in the world, all the time accompanied by their armed bodyguards. Yet in their ivory tower worlds they see the citizens of their cities as somehow less valuable than themselves, undeserving of a way to protect themselves and their families.

In today’s society, there’s something inherently wrong when law-abiding citizens can be categorized as “haves” and “have-nots”. In the all-important matter of defending one’s own life, city officials depriving others of the means to do so, especially those elected to “serve and protect”, should be seen as an outrage to any thinking American.

Am I glad Daley’s armed guard captured the escaped murderer in Michigan? Absolutely.

Do I think Daley and other anti-gun mayors and government officials should go about their daily duties without the benefit of armed bodyguards? Certainly not.

But there is no doubt that Daley should not be considered more important than other Chicago residents, who deserve to have their God-given right of self-defense recognized – just like other law-abiding citizens throughout the rest of the country.

Go to Home Page:

Tags » «

Date: Saturday, 7. November 2009 8:31
Trackback: Trackback-URL Category: from the internet, gun control

Feed for the post RSS 2.0 Comment this post

Submit comment