Usually, gun control schemes are bolstered by the idea that no civilians need firearms because the police have guns.
But let a liberal talk long enough and it will soon become apparent that he’s just feeding you a line to trick you into agreeing with giving up your Second Amendment protections.
The truth, you see, is that liberals can’t stand the idea of cops being armed any more than they can the idea of citizens being able to defend themselves.
Take District of Columbia Councilman David Grosso, who spoke Wednesday at a hearing on the use of stop-and-frisk tactics and other crimefighting techniques.
Grosso told the audience that his staff had urged him to keep his mouth shut about gun rights, but he just couldn’t help himself, saying, “I think we ought to get rid of guns in the city and that police shouldn’t have guns.”
Which would pretty much leave the heavily armed criminal element as the real power in the nation’s capital city. Think Gotham without Batman or Jim Gordon.
Fellow Councilman Jimmy Wells jumped right in to defend such the notion, saying there are entire countries where police don’t carry deadly weapons.
Wells had convened the hearing based on events in Ferguson, Missouri, where communist activists, “community organizers” and other schmendricks have been looting stores, burning flags and generally making a violent nuisance of themselves over the shooting of an iconic “unarmed teen” — in reality an 18-year-old bear-size hoodlum who tried to beat a police officer into unconsciousness.
Because of Ferguson and other well-publicized events in which police officers who happened to be white defended themselves from thugs who happened to be black, guys like Grosso and Wells believe police need to be brought to heel.
Rather than using weaponry against criminals, Grosso apparently believes the magic of conversation will resolve all conflicts. “I think we have to reimagine the way that we relate to one another, across the board, and that includes [the D.C. police department],” he told the Washington Post.
“When you have a gun,” he continued, “it changes the dynamic completely. If we had a police force that could be trained to de-escalate situations without a gun like in other countries, I think we’d be in a better place. … Call me a radical, but I’m trying to change things in our city.”
Grosso claims he’s not naive enough to think that the city can eliminate all guns, just most of them. He suggested that only some officers on patrol might have weapons.
Perhaps the city could negotiate with the local gangs to make sure they’re on board with the plan, as well. D.C. could arm, say, every tenth crook or cop in the city.
Why does this guy Grosso make me think of the movie “Demolition Man,” where the police were so overly domesticated that they had to consult handheld computers for suggestions on how to intimidate a criminal who ignores commands to surrender? Then there was also the scene with the police officers singing, “I wish I were an Oscar Mayer weiner. …”
On second thought, go ahead, Mr. Grosso. Get rid of police weapons and teach the whole city to wish each other “mellow greetings,” “happy happy joy joy” or whatever floats your liberal boat. Just keep it in D.C., and watch your crime rates soar again.
I enjoy grousing about police as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day, I like that my local law enforcement can go all Robocop on some punk’s ass if need be. That’s how we roll in the real America.
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!