According to the Associated Press on July 21: “Philadelphia’s police union is condemning Hillary Clinton for allowing relatives of people killed by police to speak at the Democratic National Convention without giving equal time to families of fallen officers. John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5, said the union is insulted by the decision to exclude families of officers killed in the line of duty.”

From the article:

Clinton has made curbing gun violence a focus of her White House bid, campaigning alongside several women who have lost their children to gun violence or after contact with police,

referencing a group called “The Mothers of the Movement”. I’m all for curbing gun violence, but this focus on the police with regard to gun violence is an interesting twist for the Democrats. Usually Democrats stick to trying to disarm the general public. However, in reality, the vast majority of the public consists of law-abiding citizens like you and me. We are on the same side as the police. Why are the Democrats trying to drive a wedge between us?

It reminds me of an interchange I had with a (very) liberal friend at a dinner party in Shepherdstown years ago. Our conversation drifted across several topics but when the subject of gun control came up he exclaimed, “There is no place in civil society for a gun!” As I felt the eyes in the room begin to turn in our direction, I responded, “Then why can’t we have a civil discussion about it?”

To his credit, he calmed down, even apologized, and we went on with our conversation. I asked gingerly (with liberals you have to approach them with politically correct kid gloves when expressing a dissenting opinion) whether he meant that “no guns doctrine” applied to the police as well. Thankfully the answer to that was “no.” He acknowledged that the police need guns because bad guys have guns. I then reminded him that us “ordinary folks” might need guns for precisely the same reason. He took it under advisement and went on with dinner.

To continue with my stream of consciousness, that conversation calls to mind a quote from the oft-obnoxious and sometimes cantankerous Canadian, Stefan Molyneux. He states,

If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you are very pro-gun.

An interesting perspective. Ever the outspoken philosopher, he continues,

So you are very pro-gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.

In other words, citizens have an inalienable right to bear arms for the same reasons that police are armed. There are bad guys out there and if we disarm the good guys only the bad guys will have guns. But then there are other emerging trends along these lines that may be a source of concern for a civil society.

According to Wikipedia, under the heading “Militarization of Police,” is the following description: It “involves the use of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement officers. This includes the use of armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, sniper rifles and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams.” You know, the type of things that the DNC platform says it wants to “keep off our streets.” Wikipedia goes on to say, “Concerns about the militarization of police have been raised by both ends of the political spectrum in the United States, with both the right-of-center/libertarian Cato Institute and the left-of-center American Civil Liberties Union voicing criticisms of the practice.”

According to a 2014 Washington Post article called “Shedding Light on the Use of SWAT Teams,” “criminologist Peter Kraska has estimated that there are somewhere between 50,000 and 80,000 SWAT raids per year now in America and that number is likely growing.” - the biggest barrier to performing an analysis being the lack of data. “But in the one state where we do have the data [Maryland], here’s what we know”… and I’ll paraphrase: There are about 4.5 SWAT raids each day in Maryland, about a third in Prince George’s County alone. (Incidentally, that county is 63 percent black and voted 90 percent Democrat in the 2012 presidential election, according to Wikipedia). Ninety percent of the raids were simply to serve search warrants. Two thirds used forced entry. Half the raids in 2012 were for nonviolent crimes. If you google “SWAT raids gone wrong” you’ll find scores of tragic stories on the subject. It isn’t something that should be done routinely.

Of equal concern has to do with the alarming trend of the arming of federal agencies. A Wall Street Journal op-ed piece co-written by former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn asked, “Why Does the IRS Need Guns?” and tells us that “(the) number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000).” In asking the question, “AR-15 Rifles for IRS agents?” the article notes that, “In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996.” The article asks the question: “What is the Obama administration up to?” I might add, this is a domestic arms race aimed at U.S. citizens.

From the Boston Globe in June this headline: “The (Food and Drug Administration) is stockpiling military weapons - and it’s not alone.” The article goes on to list the tens of millions of dollars spent arming such as agencies as the FDA, the Department of Agriculture, the IRS, the Bureau of Public Debt and so on. And has the FDA conducted armed SWAT Raids? According to several reports, yes - against a couple of dairy farms for producing raw milk. You can’t make this stuff up.

I attended a luncheon this past weekend hosted by the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, the state-based advocacy organization dedicated to the protection of our gun rights. Art Thomm, the organization’s vice president conducted the meeting. While pointing to the organization’s success in the Legislature regarding HB 4145, the constitutional carry bill, Thomm also pointed out a couple of interesting statistics, among them that FBI statistics show that in 2011 the total number of gun deaths from all rifles combined, including so-called “assault rifles” was 323. That’s right, 323. And that includes all long guns, such as shotguns, not just “assault” rifles. According to Thomm, the number of homicides committed with a hammer that year was in excess of 600. By 2014, the long-gun deaths category had dropped to 248. He didn’t elaborate on the hammer statistics for that year.

It all goes to show how wrong headed the DNC and their presidential candidate are with regard to the “gun control.” In the past, the Democrat party has at least paid lip service to the Second Amendment. There is not even that in the 2016 platform. Add to that, the Philadelphia police union feels that the Democrats insulted them.

From the very left-leaning magazine Mother Jones comes this headline, “Fallen Police Officers Will Finally Be Recognized at the Democratic Convention. Better late than never.” The article notes: “Although convention organizers say this was part of the plan all along, the tribute wasn’t on any of the planned speakers lists until Thursday morning.” How embarrassing.

The Philadelphia police union included in its statement criticizing the DNC, “It’s time for politicians so cynical as to pick sides against the rule of law and due process to make the right choice and stand with the men and women of law enforcement and to stop shameful rhetoric.” Amen. And that statement applies to all of us.