Philadelphia shootout puts the lie to the anti-gun lobby

Wednesday's shooting incident, in which it is reported that Maurice Hill injured six police officers during a standoff after officers served a warrant for the arrest of suspected drug-dealers in Northeast Philadelphia, demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Left on the gun restriction issue.  (On Thursday, another shooting incident in Philadelphia injured five persons.)  Within one hour of the first incident, Kamala Harris rushed to condemn pro–gun rights groups and urge greater restrictions on legitimate and honest persons owning guns.  Soon after, Cory Booker gave his rendition of "take-away" guns.  Both senators know better and demonstrate the lie that underscores their desire to limit the Second Amendment.

YouTube screen grab.

First, it is important to understand these two dishonest politicians' background.  Senator Booker of New Jersey was the mayor of Newark, N.J. from 2006–13.  This is one of the most crime-infested cities in America.  The largest city in New Jersey with a population of 280,000, it has been in decline since the 1950s, when the population exceeded 400,000.  The city demographic is over 50% minority, with an average income about one half of the national level.  The city boasts universities, an international airport, many major corporation headquarters, and cultural centers, yet the city is the brunt of jokes about livability and safety. 

Although Booker did reduce its budget deficits and improved policing efforts, he did not succeed in reversing the negative stigma that the city maintains.  Most importantly, he is familiar with all the ramifications of illegal gun possession by criminals in that city.  New Jersey has strict gun laws, but criminals manage to steal or procure guns.  Drug-dealers use these guns to enforce their territories and protect their turf.  How many new laws will it take to stop them?  It is already illegal for felons to possess these weapons.

The same is true of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania where convicted felons cannot own guns legally.  Would the politicians confiscate the guns from felons or from honest citizens?  I think the answer is obvious.  The Philadelphia shooter is a multi-time convicted felon.  The legal system in the city managed to plea-bargain so many crimes that it is no wonder that he was on the streets to inflict more havoc.

Senator Harris did not use the opportunity to discuss criminal possession of guns.  Let us not forget that she was the California Attorney General from 2011–17.  In that capacity she would be familiar with criminal possession of guns despite the laws prohibiting this.  The most populous state in the nation has tremendous poverty while housing some of richest Americans.  Almost one in five prison inmates in the nation is a criminal alien.  California is among the top five states in this category.  Harris would be familiar with this statistic. 

Other Democratic presidential candidates attacked the Republicans over guns during the past two days.  None has addressed the issue of mental illness and the closing of the institutions that had housed seriously ill persons.  In an effort to save money, many state facilities were closed or their size was reduced.  At the time, the rationale given was usually for civil liberties protections, but these people were released to our streets where they roam. 

Due to HIPAA restrictions these people are not always reported to agencies that maintain records that would preclude gun purchases.  Thus, is it any shock that some of the worst homicidal incidents were committed by young males who were seriously deranged?  Nobody did anything necessary to halt their access to devastating guns.  Did the gun load itself and walk to the shooting area alone?  Of course, the answer is clear to rational people; someone had to take the gun and shoot it at innocent people.

Stricter background checks might be helpful, but then robust protections would be needed for honest citizens.  Politicians on the Left will attempt to take as many guns as possible from regular people.  Where is the outcry against the illegal guns being used to kill minorities in the South Chicago communities plagued by drugs and crime?  Where are the Democrats decrying the crime and weapons possessions in Baltimore, Detroit, or St. Louis, for instance?  This would show the lie in outlawing guns (or assault weapons, whatever these are).  Criminals use illegal guns, and they possess guns that are already illegal in their hands.  More laws would remove the rights for decent people trying to exercise self-protection. 

When asked whether New Yorkers should be allowed to own guns, Mayor de Blasio responded that he feels that people are entitled to safety.  To any observer, this can only mean dependence upon police protection.  If the shooter in Dayton, Ohio could get off enough bullets in 30 seconds to injure 27 and kill 9 people, then what chance would we have if we must wait for the police to arrive if they are minutes away from an intruder in our home?

I do not own any guns and am not a member of the NRA.  But I know that the Second Amendment is not about hunting rights.  The right to bear arms is the right to self-defense.  In a modern society, this appears unnecessary unless we remember that the Nazis (National Socialist Party of Germany) removed the right to own guns before they enforced their dictatorship.  The same is true in communist counties.  But the socialists in the Democratic Party do not think anyone remembers this history.  Some of us do!

If you experience technical problems, please write to