As was the case for Republicans gathered for their national
convention in Philadelphia a few weeks ago, protesters have also
gathered to demonstrate against Democrats during their shindig in Los
Angeles this week.

But for the party that never met a gun control law it didn’t like —
except for those that “don’t go far enough” — I wonder: did anyone else
find it ironic as hell that hundreds of riot-clad and armed
police officers are protecting Democratic convention delegates this

Worse, isn’t it hypocritical that Democrats who now depend on
the LAPD to “protect them” from the displeased masses had no qualms
about trashing the same LAPD during the Rodney King trial-induced riots
of 1992?

Of course, liberals will counter that throughout their attempts to
chip away at and eventually destroy the meaning of the Second Amendment,
they have always insisted on “exemptions” for police officers.
Cops — not ordinary citizens — should be well-armed and free to pack
heat wherever they go because “it’s their job to protect us.” Hitler
would be proud, as would Stalin and Mao.

But the problem with that line of thought is that the Supreme Court
has ruled, once upon a time, that police departments do not have
a lawful duty to “protect” us. If the court had ruled any other way,
police officers and departments all over the country would constantly be
in court, getting sued over every murder and crime because they “failed”
in their “duty to protect” us.

Makes sense. But perhaps there is another reason the Court ruled that
way; maybe at that time the Supremes felt that Americans could — and
should — largely protect themselves. What a concept, eh?

Many people do, of course. Even Democrats and liberals — but that
doesn’t stop them from being hypocritical about guns and what they can
do for the rest of us, most of whom don’t wear a badge.

As the Democratic National Convention rambles on this week, it’s
worth it to consider what may happen to this all important right to
self-preservation if Vice President Al Gore succeeds President Clinton
in November.

Personally, I’m not sure the Second Amendment could survive even four
more years of abject socialist government. I darned sure don’t think the
gun makers can. And I don’t want to leave my safety in the hands of
undermanned police departments who cannot reasonably be expected to be
nearby the next time some thug wants my dough.

However, if that’s what we want as a nation — to be unarmed victims
depending on police to “protect” us instead of protecting ourselves —
then I guess Gore’s our man.

But if we prefer the individualism and self-reliance of our ancestors
and forefathers, Democrats are the last political party we want “in
charge of things.”

As it happens, an armed society that is free to carry firearms
whenever and wherever it chooses is statistically a more polite society
— and a society better able and more willing to help our cops
out when they need it.

Maybe the Democrats’ anti-gun attitude is appropriate for L.A. and
California. But it sure isn’t right for the rest of this country.

Maybe that’s the answer — set up “gun-free” states so Americans have
a choice (it’s all about “choice” these days, isn’t it?) whether to live
where a man and woman can protect themselves and their children or a
place where the attitude is, “Leave the protection to us.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.