The Second Amendment as a Viable "Right"

Much has been made, by "Gun Nuts" of the value of the Second Amendment as a viable statement in reference to the "right of self defense".

This position has been largely "poo-pooed" by "Gun Control Advocates. Their position seems to be that, in this age of civility, there is no reason why an honest citizen should need to possess a firearm for personal defense. After all, isn't that what the police are for?

No. the police have the mandate to solve crimes, not to prevent them. This is legal writ, and has served time and again to protect Law Enforcement Officers (and their departments) from civil suits from the families of victims who have notified LEO organizations that they considered themselves potential victims, and have not subsequently received dedicated protection from clearly identified potential assailants.

Sometimes we require a concrete example of the consequences of LEO failure to protect victims, and also of the consequences of disallowing individuals the right to arm themselves for self-defense .... even though they have been informed that blatant threats have been identified.

A case in point is a situation in Ciuddad LaBaron, Mexico, as described in this Houston Chronicle article from July 7, 2009.

Essentially, a religious community in Mexico, populated by "Dual Citizenship" families (Mexico/America) has historically been threatened by drug gangs mostly because they protested to the Mexican Government that local drug gangs were predating people in their area.

Benjamin LeBaron and other village leaders had led hundreds of people in May to Chihuahua City to demand government action in the abduction of Eric LeBaron, Benjamin’s 16-year-old brother. The kidnappers were demanding $1 million in ransom, but the LeBaron community had decided to instead pressure for the boys’s release, which occurred in mid-May.

“We’re fighting as a community,” Brent LeBaron said. “Standing up against extortionists and kidnappers. But we have never done anything against the drug lords. We stay away from the drug war because we know it’s a battle that we can’t win.”

A placard left with the bodies said the killings were in retribution for the June arrests by federal forces of 25 men in a distant village accused of running narcotics.

In America, we are allowed to protect ourselves by self-armament. The "Castle Law" is a visible confirmation of the Second Amendment.

But in Mexico, it is illegal to arm yourself to protect yourself, your neighbors and your family. Because citizens cannot own guns, only outlaws own guns -- which lends credence to the old 2nd Amendment slogan which is so denigrated by "gun-control advocates".

Here is the money-quote from the CRON article from Brent LaBaron, the cousin of one of the victims:

“We don’t know what to do,” he said. “We can’t bear arms. We have no way of legally protecting ourselves.”

While the liberals of America criticize Second Amendment Supporters, they (the Liberals) are protected by a Law Enforcement system which, although flawed, is superior to the Mexican example. American Liberals glorify the concept that honest individual citizens are incompetent and subject to random insanity. They suggest that nobody is personally competent to possess a firearm without yielding to the overwhelming temptation to use that firearm
"inappropriately".

That is patently bullshit. These gun-fearing wussies (to borrow from Kim de Tuit) are so fearful of their inability to resist their own primal impulse to chaos, they are unable to understand that sane people populate the world with them. Sane people don't want to run wild; they just want to be left alone.

It is entirely possible that a peaceful community, such as Ciudad LaBaron, would be able to defend itself if permitted to do so by the national government of Mexico.

Instead?

Two dead, hundreds intimidated, and a God-fearing community becomes a "Last Man Standing" hostage to drug-runners and other outlaws.

Problem: a rural community terrorized.
Solution: The Second Amendment