A “Greater Right” To Weapons
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 10 months ago
We’ve discussed the ongoing attempt to hold states accountable via a boycott and also relocation of gun and ammunition companies from inhospitable states. But amidst the hubris of New York’s response, this sentiment was almost missed.
“To tell you the truth, Dave, we’re not worried about it,” John Grebert says. He is the executive director of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, a group that supported the new gun law in New York State.
But, he adds, “I think it’s pretty unfortunate that any business thinks they can bully us.”
Because people in law enforcement deal with criminals every days, Grebert thinks they have, “a greater right” to weapons, “to deal with potentially violent situations.” And Grebert says he’s confident police will still have access to the equipment they need “to get the job done right.”
He could be discussing the popular progressive notion that the militia doesn’t exist today because it’s an antiquated idea, or if it does, it consists of law enforcement. Thus, the second amendment gives them rights that it doesn’t give us, or a “greater right,” if you will.
But even though this takes on the trappings of erudition, it’s still ignorant and illogical. There were constabulary officers in the eighteenth century America that produced the constitution. And besides, if the second amendment applied only to constables, then we would have no right at all, not less right to weapons.
The reason he did give was that they deal with violence. You don’t, or if you do, it isn’t as necessary for you to be capable of dealing with it. Don’t ever forget this sentiment, and how it leads to an “us versus them” mentality in law enforcement. This is rich and wonderful because of its honesty. I’m thankful that he brought it up.
On February 18, 2013 at 8:09 am, Bill said:
This is yet another reason I do not trust the police. They may be aces in other areas, but in blue states they are horrible.
On February 18, 2013 at 11:32 am, 1389AD said:
Let the NY crybabies implode. The rest of us will have our firearms:
On February 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm, Ivy Mike said:
Some pigs are more equal than others.
On February 18, 2013 at 10:11 pm, Russ said:
Well, he is wrong enough on one point to display his massive ignorance of the founding principles of this nation. Government and government agencies do not have any rights. Only “The People” have rights, by virtue of their having been born as human beings. Governments and their agencies have powers; powers that can be restricted or revoked by the people. This actor needs to learn that his powers belong to the people of his jurisdiction and are merely delegated to him, probably through a judge who also serves at the pleasure of the people.
Russ
On February 19, 2013 at 8:44 am, MamaLiberty said:
By what legitimate authority?
The question not being asked by most of us is: By what legitimate authority? How does anyone legitimately gain authority to control the lives and choices of other people against their will?
Did you ever ask a politician, a gun grabber, a public school teacher, a bureaucrat… “By what legitimate authority do you demand, order, enforce, do these things?”
I have. Most, of course, cite the “constitution” and/or “the rule of law.” I then ask them how those things can confer LEGITIMATE authority. Where does legitimate authority over people’s lives and property originate?
So far, NONE of them can answer that, and most become extremely angry when questioned at all. Yet I would think that is the most important question we can ask.
And it’s the most important question we can ask ourselves. Do we own our lives, or have we given our sovereign and natural authority over ourselves to the rulers and politicians?
Those who have freely consented to be controlled by the constitution and the layers of ruling class and bureaucracy it created do not need my permission or my blessing. They are free to do so. The problem is that they feel equally or even especially free to impose that on me, even though I have NOT consented to be so ruled. By their own words, they must have the “consent of the governed,” but not one of them is willing to entertain the fact that not consenting -simply opting out – is possible.
Ask the question. Ask yourself first. Act accordingly.
On February 20, 2013 at 1:58 pm, Reciprocity said:
This is CHIEFS and they are not representative of police who are not chiefs.
I know a lot of officers and I would say that if anything they are disproportionately pro-gun if not gun nuts. Chiefs (I know a few) tend to be a bit “different” than your average LEO.
If “The Association of Rank And File Police Officers” said stuff like this, I’d be more concerned.
On February 22, 2013 at 10:25 am, Steve Gibbs said:
The thing to remember is that you do not become a Chief of Police by being an outstanding policeman. You get off the street as soon as you can (no citizen complaints if you do not have citizen contact) and mimic whatever the political leaders where you work say.