When the Police Can’t Protect You, the Second Amendment Should
On March 16, 1975, three women living in a Washington, D.C., townhouse were awakened by the sound of their back door being kicked in.
Two invaders violently attacked one of the women, who had been asleep on the second floor. They beat and raped her. Her two roommates called the police from the third floor. Assured that help was coming, the women crawled out a window onto the roof, seeking safety.
They saw a squad car slowly drive past. It never stopped. Terrified, the women crawled back into the house. Once more they called the police. Then they hid.
Half an hour passed. The women, hearing no noises downstairs, assumed police had arrived and that they were safe. They went down to the second floor. The rapists were waiting. The three women were beaten and raped repeatedly—for 14 hours. The police never came.
Thankfully, all three women survived. A lawsuit was brought against the D.C. police department. Ruling on their last appeal in 1981, the D.C. Court of Appeals said: “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”
In short, the police can’t be everywhere they are most needed. When you’re attacked, it’s between you and the criminal. Law enforcement, despite the best of intentions, and its officers’ dedication, has no legal duty to help you.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
[Proposed] Amendment XXVIII to the Constitution of the United States:
Section 1
The second article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States
is hereby repealed: The 'General Militia' of all able and fit males be-
tween 18 and 45 years of age no longer exists...Neither Congress, nor t
he several States shall enact any law which denies law-abiding United S
tates Citizens the posession of lawful firearms for defense of their do
miciles and for other purposes permitted by the several States, such as
self-protection, hunting , marksmanship, and arms-collecting...
Section 2
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possess
ion of the United States for delivery or use therein of firearms, their
parts, accessories, or ammunition therefore, in violation of the laws
thereof, is hereby prohibited...
Section 3
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as
an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States,
as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of th
e submission thereof to the States by the Congress...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How to fix DC: U.S. Citizen residents of DC select an appropriate fire-
arm to defend their domicile. A permit is obtained from the District to
legally register the weapon and have it transported to the resident--at
their domicile...A bonded messenger or otherwise authorized person bring
s the arm to the resident and, upon examining their photo-ID, Driver's
License, or U.S. Passport and the owner's copy of the DC Permit, hands
over the arm with any owner's manual, or additional information...The
owner must have been given on-range training at the location of purchas
e. When the owner moves within or from the District, he/she must apply
for a new permit to transfer the arm to the new DC address, or remove
it from the District within 72 hours. In this manner, all personal, resi
dential firearms are accounted for if kept in DC or removed therefrom..
Whenever transported from address-to-address or out of DC, the arm must
be cable-locked thru the breech and box or in-handle magazine openings,
or thru the barrel and cylinder, if a revolver...The arm, if a handgun,
shud be placed in a transparent, reclosable food storage bag with a cop
y of the transfer-permit visible...Aaron Allen...
The 2nd is NOT about militia service. The right to arms is NOT about militia service. The right to arms is about self defense, not only from criminals but from TRYANNY as well. Read the founders. And know that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant me anything... they mearly codify and protect rights that existed prior the founding of this nation. Educate yourself, www.supremecourtus.gov/opinion/07pdf/07-290pdf
Please explain how having the tools, skills, and will to stop this incident before it ever became a horrible ordeal could have possibly made it worse?
When I lived in that great gun-ban paradise Chicago, I was raped. Not only did the police fail to act on my prior reports of stalking and harassment, but thanks to the rapist's shall-we-say connections he was never arrested or prosecuted.
I now live in a state where I can own and carry a gun for personal defense. My training includes gun handling and safety control under stress, combat marksmanship, the judicious use of deadly force, weapon retention, and force-on-force (actual combat using non-lethal Simuntion marking cartridges or Airsoft guns). How does this preparation render me less safe than being helpless?
From your perspective I can only imagine how much safer you feel. I too carry a handgun for personal defense, in addition I have a CCL which permits me to carry a concealed gun in public (there are exceptions to this which vary from state to state). I live in a rough town, not to mention I teach at a high school which is prone to violence, and I just wish they'd let the teachers carry handguns for protection as well.
Why do you believe that guns would have made a difference. In this circumstance the women all survived their horrible ordeal. What if they had guns? Would they have been safer? More than likely they would have been less safe and perhaps the outcome would have been much different.