We left things open yesterday with a question:
If the sight of a man or woman openly carrying a gun frightens you, why is it you don’t get scared when you see an armed police officer? Are they the only ones who can be trusted to bear arms?
I'll get to that in a moment, but first an update on the City of Cleveland, notably the mayor and police chief, enforcing non-existent law against open carrying of firearms--something that is legal, albeit not widely practiced in Ohio.
The Plain Dealer has an update with no small amount of backpedaling:
Stacho said he was misquoted and never made the statement about Jackson.
"I do not speak for Mayor Jackson, and no such order was given to the Division of Police by the mayor or anyone in a position to do so," Stacho said in an e-mail statement to the newspaper.
For it's part:
The Plain Dealer stands by its story.
The Buckeye Firearms Association, a statewide grassroots gun rights group uses somewhat stronger language in disputing the city's contentions.
I suppose a publicized open carry gathering within city limits would tell us whether or not the city is being forthcoming when they claim:
The police are enforcing state gun laws, said Andrea Taylor, spokeswoman for Jackson.
"We are also enforcing our local gun ordinances that are not in conflict with any state law," Taylor said.
But more on that later. We have a question to consider. Are police the only ones trustworthy enough to bear arms?
Meet Lee Paige, a DEA agent who maintained exactly that.
"I'm the only one in this room professional enough that I know of to carry this Glock .40," he told a roomful of school kids in an anti-gun/drug lecture, then proceeded to shoot himself in the foot trying to holster the weapon.
How often have we been told this though, by police officials, by politicians, by anti-gun groups, by the media? Our laws have been geared to exempt police from carry restrictions in "No Guns" zones, assigning to the uniform and the badge an automatic and unquestioned trust that police are better trained, and just generally more cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent than we mere mortal citizens. They are, we are told, the only ones who can handle the awesome trust of being armed in public.
Thing is, that doesn't bear out, and the best benchmark to test that is by looking at the remarkable record of the concealed carry experiment that has been successfully conducted in every state but two to varying degrees. Good people simply don't change their behavior or character around tools. And the police are no more law-abiding than any other demographic.
Paige's remarks became the catalyst for a phenomenon that readers of my blog, The War on Guns, began noticing along with me, something that resulted in what I call The "Only Ones" Files.
Over the past couple years, without setting out to do so, I've documented thousands of examples of moral and professional failings, including acts of true evil or incompetence by those with official power, that should give anyone pause claiming this group or that is somehow more trustworthy because of career choice/government employment status. I've actually had to beg off posting on tips because the preponderance of news accounts could easily become the dominant focus, and occasionally have to remind readers:
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only the police are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
The late, great Col. Jeff Cooper was legendary among informed gun owners. "The gunner's guru" and "father of the modern pistol technique" coined a term to describe fear of weapons, "hoplophobia."
Let's talk about that tomorrow, or more specifically, fear of weapons when the person bearing them is one of "We the People."
Comments
It is obvious that "regular people" are more trustworthy and safe with guns. After all, we are the ones who actually are held accountable when we do something reckless or stupid with our guns. Something the other side rarely faces.
This just keeps getting better and better. Kudos to the Examiner!
The conduct by officials in this case seems pretty shocking. If all of these allegations are true, there is some serious criminal behavior by those who hold positions of power in law enforcement. I would like to see additional investigations on this topic. I wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes?
The video of the DEA agent shooting himself in the foot is a classic!
I consider myself a fairly well-read individual who closely follows current events. But it wasn’t until I became a regular reader of The War on Guns that I realized the extent of police misbehavior around the country. While managing the concessions cash collection operation at an NFL stadium for eight years I worked closely with local law enforcement. Consequently I have always been very slow to castigate police, and very quick to excuse their “occasional” failings. But having read the “Only Ones” files religiously, I’ve had my eyes forced open widely! Police officers are human and subject to the same failings and mistakes as anyone; possibly more so because of the corrupting influence of all the powers they’re vested with.
So now whenever I hear someone articulate the ridiculous argument that only police should have guns, it’s very hard not to just cackle with laughter right in their face!
"it wasn’t until I became a regular reader of The War on Guns that I realized the extent of police misbehavior around the country."
You need to visit Radley Balko's blog at theagitator.com.
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's re-state the 2nd in another context:
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.
There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.
We need to stop thinking in the terms that there is a piece of paper that 'insures' a right.
When we were born, we were imbued with the right of existance. In our very soul, and DNA we know that it is OUR obligation to continue that existance. People call it the "Will to Survive" which drives us to fight of savage animals, persevere through natural disasters, or perform super-human feats all in the name of survival.
Imagine being prosecuted for being presented with a life threatening situation and using every possible tool at your disposal to continue your life?
"We're sorry sir, that Victorinox utility knife that you used has an illegal magnifying glass, you also created an illegal campfire to keep yourself warm, and those berries are a protected species... you're coming with us"
It is the incredible capacity of our brain to be able to reason out of a situation, use EVERY available tool at our disposal, and if necessary think/plan ahead and have those tools ready when we need them.
A firearm is a tool, like any one of the others that we have created throughout time. Simply because those in power wish to stay unquestionably in power regardless of what trespass they commit against those not in power, is the only reason we're even having this discussion.
We have a RIGHT to survive, on our own terms with the best tools at our disposal to stop those who would wrongfully visit harm upon us or those whom we protect.
This is fabulous work - both the article and the "Files"!
Enjoyed the article very much.
Here is a new one for your "The Only Ones" files - Detroit Cop Shoots Wife Who is Also a Detroit Cops and Then Tries To Commit Suicide at the Canton Library - Canton, MI. Unfortunately this is my home town where people question why I carry. I have even had people at the library see me putting my gun in the lockbox question me as to why I would carry in such a safe little town.
ironically, when the concept of a domestic police force was introduced in England, the people were the ONLY ones permitted to carry guns, and the police were forbidden to, being required to keep their guns unloaded and locked up at the station (sound familiar?) and only allowed to use them for massive civil disturbances, the reasoning being that it was necessary for that but that the people could handle petty confrontations on their own, and unarmed cops would be unable to leverage their superior firepower against the populus as a whole, thereby keeping civil power in its proper proportion. the idea of a police force was accepted ONLY on these grounds, and even then it was a tough sell. how things have changed.
Thanks David Codrea.
Great work as always.
Come to think of it, I’ve yet to actually see a citizen open-carry in public.
Should I encounter an open-carry citizen, my interest wouldn’t at all be in the sight of open carry in public itself, but what they’ve chosen as a sidearm.
Just my opinion but the 9sillymeter and high-cap mags hint of some question of skill, confidence and poor judgment in caliber choice, Ladies excepted
As for LEO’s… I’ve been around long enough to see a drastic change from the old school gentlemen whose character commanded respect and who I’d trust with my life--to the new-age undertrained and underbrained revenue-enhancement types who make me nervous anytime they’re around, and most of ‘em I wouldn’t trust to walk my dog.
Not advising, but bein' a conscientious driver who obeys all the laws, when pulled over in the city, I don’t stop on the street but drive into a lighted parking lot, get out with all my info handy and lock the doors.
"average citizen",
you just haven't been in the right places. where i live i've lawfully carried a gun openly and concealed, at my own descretion frequently, with no hassle from the police and few questions from curious individuals, for many years.
"a.c."
add: for whatever it tells you, my regular choice of carry sidearm is an m1911a1 g.i. colt.
"I'm the only one in this room professional enough that I know of to carry this Glock .40," -- Lee Paige
If he was actually qualified, he would know there is NO SUCH THING as a "Glock 40." He was probably referencing the Glock 23 or Glock 35, which are chambered for a .40 round.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!