Funny, but I can remember when the left was very anti-establishment and very anti-po-po — and the police, in turn, were quite suspicious of the left.<\/p>\n
Those were the days before the Constitution died, though, and before cronyism began spreading across the political spectrum with every interest group staking its claim.\u00a0\u00a0 For the political arm of our local police forces, taking away a citizen’s ability to be his own first responder creates a greater need for the police, which in turn leads to bigger budgets, more control, and the increased militarization of their local forces, generally through the largess of a government who joins them in their commitment to move the balance of power away from the individual and toward the state and its policing apparatus.<\/p>\n
Which makes the political branch of law enforcement a natural ally of the progressive.<\/p>\n
Whereas Sheriffs, on the other hand, tend to lean heavily in favor of keeping citizens as first responders, because doing so helps keep their jurisdictions better policed.<\/p>\n
So this is not terribly surprising to me, the support of the nation’s police chiefs for strict gun control — though I suspect it’s coming as a shock to a lot of “pro law-enforcement” conservatives.<\/p>\n
CNS<\/a>:<\/p>\n Yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared on MSNBC pushing for an assault weapons ban and said that Americans need to make a decision “If personal pleasure is more important that general welfare.” She also said that “all the police” support her bill.<\/p>\n […]<\/p>\n “Our support is very broad. The White House has been very good. They’ve been very clear. I think we’ve got all the police, we have all the mayors<\/span><\/b> virtually. The Conference of mayors, Mayors Against Guns; we have medical experts. We have virtually dozens of religious organizations of every creed supporting us. We have just lists and lists. I’ve put together a little booklet that contains the basics on the bill, as well as a list of the endorsers.<\/p>\n However, CNSNews.com recently reported that\u00a0a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up against gun control measures<\/a> proposed by the Obama Administration and Sen. Feinstein. Many of these law enforcement officials have written letters to both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden\u00a0voicing their concerns<\/a> over what they consider to be an infringement upon the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n Feinstein also responded to comments made by the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre over the weekend about the senator’s “assault” on the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n “I don’t really expect to agree with much Mr. LaPierre says. Of course, he has the right to say it and I have the right to do this. I’ve tried to do it carefully. We have 22 co-sponsors, I recognize it’s an uphill battle. I also know these events are going to continue – America has to step up.\u00a0The mothers, the women, the men of America have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n “Grievance\u00a0killers look for these weapons. These weapons are easy to obtain. There are no background checks, you can buy them out of a back of a car at a gun show.\u00a0America’s laws are virtually non-existent <\/b>and therefore I think this is a good bill. I intend to fight; I did it once before. If it doesn’t get done right now, be assured I will continue to press the case.”<\/p>\n She also called the NRA a “volatile” organization that assaults people who go against them: “So, we will be making our argument. <\/b>It’s very difficult to go against the NRA, because they are\u00a0volatile, they assault one.<\/b> We are making our arguments and I hope America will stand up and say ‘enough is enough.'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Oh, they will, Senator Feinstein.\u00a0 Just not in the way you hope.<\/p>\n Majoritarianism brought about through federal arm-twisting of state legislators or sweet-heart compromises with the political arm of law enforcement won’t change the fact that we’re beginning to see that for many free men and women, their 2nd Amendment protections are a hill they believe is worth dieing on.<\/p>\n Timid legislators confused about the public mood or terrified about being portrayed as “pro grade-school children slaughtering” may buckle; but in the trenches, there are many who absolutely will not.<\/p>\n It’s almost as if the left is looking to create the conditions for a civil rebellion so that they can paint gun owners as potential domestic terrorists, and by so doing move even closer to the goal of all-out confiscation.<\/p>\n A plan typical of the left:\u00a0 grand in scope, but without having thought through completely how to pull it off. Because as is often their downfall, the left doesn’t understand human nature, and simply can’t anticipate the attachment to liberty some Americans still hold so very dear.<\/p>\n And that’s because progressives judge all Americans by the actions of their own electoral demographic:\u00a0 needy, low-information voters or over-educated wannabe masterminds, each of whom, for a number of reasons, is willing to advocate trading liberty and freedom for a safe and secure subjecthood.<\/p>\n Living in the big house on the hill beats 40 acres and a mule, to some.\u00a0 But I think the left underestimates the numbers willing to light out for the territories.<\/p>\n