The Right to Protection Is Not Political

This statement has less to do with the inauguration or the security associated with it and more to do with the double standard of protection that has been present for many years. More specifically, the right of protection across the board and it being applied or “allowed” to be applied evenly. Whether you are rich or poor, elected or not, your right to protection does not increase or decrease. However, the extent of protection may increase as a privilege due to social standing or elected position, but the basic right of protection naturally granted to all people remains steadfast.
 
It is very interesting that politicians have gone to incredible lengths by bringing in thousands of people armed with guns to ensure their safety and protection during the January 20th Presidential Inauguration. This of course is on top of the already thousands of people stationed/living in the DC area who provide armed security on a daily basis.
 
To be fair though, I am not privy to the intelligence or credibility of threats they may have to justify this show of force. There could be legitimate concerns of violence there at the Capitol or in the D.C. area. I also acknowledge and understand the level of security needed to protect high profile people. This is even more exaggerated with the level of security needed when pertaining to the President of the United States. 
 
Having said that, a lot of politicians who have supported and encouraged this escalation of force in D.C. are at the same time actively working to limit, restrict, or prevent the American people from owning guns for their own protection. That me say this again, but word it a little differently. They (politicians) are calling for more guns for their protection at the same time they (politicians) are calling for less guns for our (American people) protection. Is our right to protection not the same as theirs (politicians)?
 
The American people do not have the ability to call in thousands of military or federal law-enforcement personnel any time we are faced with a threat(s). For instance, if the crime rate goes up in my neighborhood or there is the potential for it to go up, I cannot call in 15,000 troops as a show of force. Instead, the option I’m left with, just like most Americans, is the ability to call local law enforcement during or after the incident (assuming I’m not dead). Unfortunately, many politicians have recently supported the idea of defunding the police which in turn, can reduce their ability to prevent crime, along with their reaction times when crime is present. Without question, this negatively impacts the American people.
 
My last line of defense, along with millions of other Americans is the right to bear arms (for now anyway). I rely on this right (not privilege) of gun ownership (handgun, shotgun, and/or rifle) as an effective method of protection for me, my family, and others in the event of a threat or the possibility of it.
 
Before going any further, allow me to clarify. I am not in support of or condone the violence used at the Capitol where people got hurt or killed. Similarly, I did not support or condone the violence used for many months in American cities/towns/neighborhoods where rioters hurt and killed people, along with damaged or destroyed businesses, homes, and government property. In some cases, burnt them to the ground and deprive people of their ability to earn a living.
 
What I do support is the ability for all American people, elected or not, to have the same right to protection. If you, a politician, have the means to call in the military because of a potential threat, then I, not a politician, should have the means of gun ownership (handgun, shotgun, and/or rifle) because of a potential threat. Oddly enough, the American people’s last line of defense (individual gun ownership) is the politicians first line of defense (other people with guns).
 
I know that these situations are not the same, but they are similar as the end result is protection. Whether it is protection at the Capitol or protection at my home, the purpose is the same regardless of location.
 
If the politicians have the means of protection through the action of others using guns, then why are Americans who have the means of protection through their own guns looked down upon? In some instances, these same gun owning Americans are verbally belittled and told by politicians that they cannot be trusted to own a gun. In other words, these same Americans are told by their representatives that they cannot be trusted with their Second Amendment right. I hope that pattern does not continue with other rights...
 
In closing, the elected official is being protected by a person with a gun, just as I am protecting myself with a gun. At the end of the day, the means of protection through the use of a gun is the same. The only difference is the person holding the gun. Again, I ask, is our right to protection not the same as theirs (politicians)?
 
It seems when something affects the politicians, their actions (the politicians) are quick and justified and tend to be for the betterment of themselves. On the flip side, when something affects the American people, their actions (the politicians) are slow and questionable and tend to be against the betterment of the people. Case in point, further restriction of our right and ability for protection. It’s pretty obvious to see which group thinks is more important the other.

Image curtsy of Star Tribune

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!

- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE."

Related Articles

• The Importance of the 2nd Amendment: CLICK HERE TO READ

• Why They Gun for the Rifle: CLICK HERE TO READ
• Self-defense Is the Preservation of Life: CLICK HERE TO READ