The Morality of Gun Control

Caught an interesting piece over at the Buckeye Firearms site entitled It's the Criminals, Stupid-Man is dead after City of Cleveland fails to get violent felon off the streets by Ken Hanson, Esq. Hat tip to Keep and Bear Arms for pointing me to this site. I recommend every read the whole article, though the title says everything you need to know.

Now, putting aside that the City of Cleveland is run by a gang of leftwing ideologues who have more sympathy with people like Mr. Lesure than the do with the average, hardworking and taxpaying American, this article points up the entire problem with telling people where, and when, and how they may carry defensive weapons, or if they may carry them at all. It is not the average person on the street you need to worry about. It's the criminal, stupid.

Many people do not know this, and are shocked to discover, but the police do not in fact have any duty to protect individual citizens.  You can read about it here. Indeed, how the citizen who was, at the time, the main means of defense of both himself and his family became a "vigilante" who should not take the law into his own hands is just one more way in which our natural rights have been perverted over the years.  But it points up the moral problem various governments have when they try to restrict any citizen from carrying a weapon, either concealed or openly.  How can a government morally say that a citizen may not carry, or can only carry with permission, and then disavow the responsibility for that citizen's death if it is not natural?  Indeed, how can a restaurant that serves alcohol put up a sign that says "no guns" and then not be responsible for the safety of everyone in that restaurant?  How can an employer say to someone they may not carry, and then not provide security for their safety.

Now, before I get a bunch of hate mail from hoplaphobes saying I want to give guns to every newborn as soon as he leaves the hospital, and train them to shoot before they can walk (there is a prone position, isn't there?) I do realize that going into some of these places is entirely voluntary.  You don't need to visit a restaurant, and if you do, you take the risks the owner imposes.  But working has been determined, (by the Left interestingly enough,)  to not really be a choice.  That was the basis for no smoking bans in bars and restaurants.  Bartenders and waitresses were subjected to second hand smoke their entire shifts, day after day.  These people couldn't decide that they would rather work elsewhere.  Or was it that you felt they were to stupid to make the right decisions for them?  But I digress from the topic at hand.   Governments, on the other hand, are not voluntary, and the sovereign nature of governments makes suing them for negligence or dereliction of duty problematic.  It is even difficult to sue based on a government acting illegally.

Of course, what I am saying here ultimately has nothing to do with law, or "justice" as we know it in this lifetime.  I am speaking of morality.  When I read about instances of citizens living in places like Cleveland, where everything is done to discourage citizens from exercising their rights, and then find they are killed by a criminal who should be behind bars, but isn't, I ask myself by what moral right do they act?  Our Constitution recognized the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens.  What gives these people the right to overturn the Constitution and say otherwise?  And while the law may have nothing to do with such morality, surely the closer it cleaves to that standard, the better it would be for everyone.