Archive Logo.jpg

July 14, 2005

How about a little gunblogging...

According to the Supremes, the police still have absolutely no obligation to respond to anything. (Note to LEO's - I know you guys feel the *moral* obligation, and generally try very hard - this isn't about you guys, it's about policy, and governmental responsiblity - no slam on officers herein intended).

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

I'm not arguing the facts or the merits of the case, or the decision. Just noting that the Supreme Court has again reaffirmed that the police are not obligated to provide protection for individuals, in individual cases. On a case-by-case, individual basis, the citizen is on his or her own. Therefore... you have *another* (not that we needed it) example to use when dealing with gun-grabbers who *also* seem to believe you have little to no individual right of practical self-defense. Not that most of them will listen. They certainly don't in Britain, as Say Uncle points us to a series of articles on the issue.

Because, as Ravenwood points out - it's all about the children.

Or, as Publicola notes, when you *actually do* successfully defend yourself, irked that they can't haul you away, they take your guns, instead.

The Great Race has always been between tyranny and freedom, with order as tyranny's worthy handmaiden, and crime as freedom's ugly stepsister.
- Dana Blankenhorn