Anti-gun cities, where the rich pay for protection while the poor pay with their lives
Anti-gun cities, where the rich pay for protection while the poor pay with their lives
Posted on August 22, 2013by bulletsfirst
The story in New York City is one often told. While about 8 million souls reside in the city only a scant proportion (.00375%) are allowed to carry a gun for their own protection. And with the steep, non-refundable application fee many people just cannot afford to even try for the likelihood of getting turned down and losing nearly $500.

But the rich, famous, and connected have no issues footing that bill and getting a CCW issued to them. Yet for every Jon Lennon there are THOUSANDS of John Q Publics murdered because they have had their constitutional rights denied them, not to mention the tens of thousands raped, robbed or beaten.

Even if the privileged few didn’t feel like getting a gun and CCW, like say hypocrite Rosie O’Donnell, you can just pay armed guards to protect you and your family.

It’s a nice option, but one the vast majority of American’s cannot afford.

But New York City is not the only place where the infringement of the 2nd Amendment finds the well to do buying armed security while the less well off are forced to fend off the wolves unarmed.

In Oakland California, where crime rages in the gun control environment forced upon the state by the brain trust in Sacramento, people are also paying for armed security. That is nice if you are rich enough to afford it, or live in a neighborhood affluent enough to have the disposable income in order to share the bill.

For the people who live in a neighborhood that cannot or just won’t pay for private armed security the options are limited due to the fact that getting a ccw in Oakland is almost as difficult as getting one in New York.

In Baltimore, Maryland, they even have separate neighborhoods that pay higher tax rates in order to pay for Private Security. Though I can assure you those higher tax neighborhoods aren’t in poor neighborhoods. Once again, the people with money pay for security while the right to defend oneself is denied to those who cannot afford it.

To put it succinctly, the right to defend yourself should NOT be dependent on how much money you have.
Yet in places where the issuing body has discretion on which citizens can carry a firearm which cannot you end up with 2 America’s.

“May Issue” is more arbitrary than Jim Crow era voting laws ever were. At least Jim Crow put obstacles that could be overcome (literacy test, poll tax, etc.). ”May Issue” is just simply saying “no, you cannot exercise that right because I say so”.

Rights that can be denied on a whim is not what the founders fought for. This country is one of liberty and liberty should never be stripped due to one persons discretion.