Afrasianet - California's anti-gun policy Residents lose their means of self-defense. Thieves in Florida need to know that they are risking their lives. David Marcus – Fox News
In the midst of the many acts of courage and kindness we witnessed during the Los Angeles fires, a dark side of human nature emerged as looting rose. Unfortunately, in the staunchly anti-gun state of California, homeowners are left with few options to defend themselves.
Police have already charged more than 20 people with looting. One of the malicious spouses went so far as to dress as firefighters to help themselves grab the valuables of victims whose homes were abandoned or destroyed.
It is clear that all resources, including the police, are in a state of severe depletion as the wind continues to ignite deadly fires throughout Tinseltown, providing ruthless thieves with a purposeful environment for their crimes.
The only thing these Los Angeles thieves can count on is that if they encounter a homeowner while looting, there's little chance that that person will point a gun at them.
In the free state of Florida, where the Second Amendment is revered for protecting gun rights, not despising it, would-be thieves, after hurricanes, for example, know that stealing from the wrong home may be a death sentence.
The thieves know this because Governor Ron de Santis told them after thousands of homes were damaged by Hurricane Milton last year.
De Santis promised, "If you walk into someone's house after the storm has passed, and you think you're going to be able to commit crimes, you're going to get into really serious trouble." "And quite frankly, you don't know what's behind that door in a Second Amendment state."
There are two real ways unarmed Los Angeles residents are at risk because of Golden State's strict anti-gun laws. The first is that individuals are unable to protect themselves and their property, but the second, and perhaps worse, is that criminals are well aware of this.
When we think about the reasons why we have the Second Amendment, we often notice that it is for self-defense, but also to curb the power of the government. But in California, we see a third reason, and that's exactly this kind of emergency.
Los Angeles residents don't need firearms to topple their government, at least not yet, but they do need them to maintain the castle, or home, so to speak, while the government pours all of its resources into disaster management.
In fact, when we look at gun ownership rates by state, rural states like Montana have the highest number of firearms per capita. This is precisely because government protection in the form of police in the city is always minutes away, while in rural areas, it is often not.
This is exactly where Los Angeles residents find themselves today. City and state governments are exhausted, people need to protect themselves and short-sighted anti-gun policies prevent them from doing so.
That's why we've seen reports of some wealthy people in Los Angeles paying for special security services to protect their homes, which is great if you're a millionaire, but if you're not, it makes you more vulnerable.
Frankly, in many cases, all it takes to dissuade potential thieves from risking their lives is a handful of openly armed men on a neighborhood patrol patrol patrolling neighborhoods.
But the progressive leadership in California, which, by the way, also has armed protection at taxpayers' expense, will not allow the average citizen to protect his family with his own weapon.
Progressive gun policies like those in California, like many other progressive policies, aim to make citizens weaker, more vulnerable, and more dependent on the state. This is evident and exposed in Los Angeles today.
We hope that once this emergency passes, Californians will realize how important their gun rights are and demand their restoration. Meanwhile, thousands and thousands are simply powerless.
Los Angeles District Attorney Nate Hotchman was elected to deal strictly with crime. This is his first chance. If the city does not allow its citizens to protect themselves, the punishment for looting must be enormous, as if it were years in prison.
But frankly, this is not and will never be a suitable alternative to an armed population, which is what the Founding Fathers recognized when they enshrined our God-given right to own weapons.
Source: Fox News