For Americans who support law enforcement and trust them to safeguard both their liberties and their well-being, it is disheartening to hear officers say that the way to protect the latter is by curtailing the former.
San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia is one such officer, as he revealed in an interview with San Jose Inside. Asked about the topics of the day, Garcia not only expressed support for the controversial Black Lives Matter movement, but also voiced opposition to laws allowing Americans to own firearms for their protection.
As one might be wont to point out, a majority of law enforcement officers believe that Americans should retain the right to bear arms, meaning that Garcia is clearly in the minority on the issue. However, his position as chief of police for the 10th largest city in the country means that his opinion will carry weight among the uninformed and be cited by liberals as support for their anti-gun agenda.
Read more on the next page:
Your a police and you of all people know that gun control doesn’t work for criminals only honest people
Gun control for the criminals. Not us American abiding citizens get real what a joke
RIGHT remember when seconds count the police are just minutes away. And where I live more like ten or fifteen. No thanks I’ll keep my guns
Police Chiefs are weaseloid bureaucrats who are “at will” employees of other weasels. Never expect anything else from them.
What a nitwit!
You can tell he’s drinking the koolaid.
Then do your job and go after criminals.
Absolute idiot who should be fired immediately!
The bad guys will still be armed.
That won’t the criminals from having them
“It is, Sir, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law.” —Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Is this sentence so hard to understand? Apparently so. Even some of its defenders don’t like how it is worded because it allegedly breeds misunderstanding.
But the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is indeed a well-crafted sentence. By that I mean that its syntax permits only one reasonable interpretation of the authors’ meaning, namely, that the people’s individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting armed populace will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. Someone completely ignorant of the eighteenth-century American political debates but familiar with the English language should be able to make out the meaning easily.