“FBI: 77% Of JUSTIFIABLE Homicides Involved Firearms; 99% For Police”
According to the FBI’s unified crime report, 77.3% of justifiable homicides, defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony, committed by private citizens in 2011 involved firearms. That’s 201 involving a firearm out of 260 total justified homicides.
For justifiable homicides committed by law enforcement officers in 2011, the number is even higher. According to the same FBI unified crime report police used firearms in 99.2% of the justifiable homicides they were involved in, 390 of 393 to be exact.
Furthermore, the FBI’s unified crime report tells us that the rate of firearms use in justified homicides has never fallen bellow 77.3% between 2007 & 2011. Similarly the rate for law enforcement officers has never been below 98.7% for that period.
Clearly, the data show that firearms are an integral part of self defense, at least in cases of justifiable homicides.
None of which matters, because this fight is not about guns. They are but the prop. Rather, this fight is about power, control, liberty, and the Statist’s desire to remove the last, most effective obstacle keeping free men free, not subjects, or masses to be managed and herded by a ruling elite.
Piers Morgan may sneer like the posturing foppish puff pastry he is, but the truth remains that the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to arm the American populace. And this arming was understood to serve as a way to defend the country and oneself — not only from potential foreign invaders, but from a home-grown tyrannical government. The USC and many state codes and constitutions identify both ready and reserve “militia” — a group that consists of all citizens, we the people, and those intent on becoming citizens.
When it comes to the relationship of the free individual to the state, it was the original, classically liberal iteration of “peace through strength” — or at the very least, a kind of detente. Noting that it isn’t likely to ever come to that — Morgan called the very idea absurd — is not the same as negating what was and is the purpose of the amendment. Leaving aside that in the 20th century alone we saw what tyrannical leftwing governments were willing to do to a disarmed populace, rendering Morgan’s definition of absurd absurd, you don’t change the Constitution with smug irony and haughty dismissiveness.
Obama and the Left have plans to erode that necessary protection to our liberty by way of Executive order — knowing that he can’t get legislation passed through Congress despite the orchestrated push by the progressives and their media handmaidens to demonize guns and gun ownership, and to use every emotion appeal they can contrive to push public opinion to their side.
If Obama believes we need to re-consider second amendment protections, he has at his diposal the amendment process and the bully pulpit. What he doesn’t have is dictatorial authority. Unless we grant it to him.
Thus far, the GOP has been largely silent on this issue — yet another hill they don’t appear willing to die on — but we mustn’t be. Nor should we feel compelled to comply with unconstitutional dictates. And this will remain true even after Obama stacks the Supreme Court with anti-gun activists in order to get legal rulings giving him or some future leftist cover to usurp by legislation a natural right that can only be challenged through the amendment process.
The only way to defeat a post-constitutionalist President and his willing cabal of lawbreakers is to insist on reaffirming the Constitution, then holding those who seek to undermine it to account. That we may not have the votes to do so doesn’t mean the gesture is an empty one.
It may seem at times that there is nothing larger and more powerful than the federal Leviathan. But we the people, brought together by the common purpose of protecting 0ur liberties, can be just that. If we are willing to stand up and be counted.