Protection for whom?
When politicians endorse acts and bills that eventually become laws, are they really thinking of their constitutency? For example, a representative or congressperson who’s district is considered an “urban or inner city” region, drafts a bill that renders all automatic weapons illegal. The idea, or motivation for the bill sounds noble enough, wanting to protect the citizens from the evils of gang violence. However, if only the criminals have those weapons, and the law abiding citizens are not permitted to ever get one, in order to protect themselves from the violence that the gang members will inevitably inflict, where is the justice in that? So the bill, which was approved by the requisite government officials in order to become a law of the land, is now hindering the law abiding public from protecting themselves. And those who have illegal weapons, can hold the law abiding citizens hostage because of the inequality that is now interpreted as the law of the land. Just how is enabling the criminals now interpreted as protecting the public? The logic that politicians use, in the beginning stages, can be noble. It’s just that by the time that the introduced bill is transformed into a law, that same bill no longer protects the people that it set out to protect; but instead does them harm. When laws calling for gun control, or outlawing the sale of a certain weapon are enforced, the very people who want to protect themself from danger are made victims of the noble minded law.
