Protection: What About the Rest of Us?

Representative Peter King (R-NY) plans to enter new legislation that would make it illegal for anyone to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a government official.  Wait, wait.  What about the rest of us?

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.  Homeland security for whom?  Not the people, but surely for our elected officials.  Is this another perk of office or is it a denial of protection for all the rest of us poor slobs?   This is yet another act of American cowardice.  To legislate the protection of America’s office holders, at the taxpayer’s expense and exclusion from that protection, is unbelievable.  We shall have gun control only to protect our policy makers; the rest of us are on our own, falling prey to no gun control at all.  Double standard?  Narcissism?  Special treatment for the powers that be?  A fear for the safety of the legislators yet a proposed policy to ensure gun rights are still intact and thus, the vote for re-election is also?

Let me see if I am comprehending King’s proposal: America should use their citizens’ tax dollars to provide protection for their government officials, but not for the protection of all Americans?  How do you think this double standard will fly in the eyes of the proletariat?  This “solution” is so lacking in thought and consideration that it makes one wonder if it wasn’t put forward merely to make King seem like he really cares.  Nothing “renaissancey” about this doozy of an idea; more like a return to the Dark Ages.  It is already illegal for a person to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a school, and we have seen just how effective that law has been, i.e. Virginia Tech and the numerous high school sieges.

What is good for one is good for all.  Therefore, should this farce of legislation pass, there is not enough surface area on the face of this earth to ensure the proposed 1000 foot distance between a gun carrier and the rest of us.  We would have to use the air space all the way to the moon to ensure the enforcement of such a law.  Is it as obvious to you as it is to me that sensible gun control might be a better alternative to this phony attempt at assuaging the people?

Besides, tell me this: if the general public is not likewise protected against our violent practices, who is going to be left to vote anyway?


Tags: , ,

%d bloggers like this: