Since disarming the citizens of this country is the objective of the federal government, and since the federal government proclaims this to be a democratic country based upon equality, then any gun control measures adopted by the government should be democratically applied. If law-abiding citizens are to have their guns taken from them then let the law-abiding police agencies of the state be disarmed also. (Those in law enforcement who are crooked can keep their guns just as the drug pushers and criminal elements in the civilian population at large will keep theirs.) Democracy based on equality requires that, so far as possible all are to be democratically equal. Why should the police, FBI, and federal marshals remain armed while citizens are not? Let us look at this issue in an intelligent, reasonable manner and examine the arguments.It will be said of those in favor of non-democratic gun control that the police come into contact with dangerous criminal elements and need guns to defend themselves as well as to enforce the laws. This is, of course, quite true, but is it not equally true for the citizens of this country? Are they not the chief victims of crime? Do they not need to protect themselves? In most cases, the policeman or FBI agent is much more able to defend himself as a result of training, physical conditioning, and experience than, say, a woman at a shopping mall who is dragged into an attacker's van and raped while her child is beaten unconscious by the assailant. Why, in an equal democratic society, would laws be passed that would provide a pistol for the police officer and not for the woman? Does not the woman as a citizen enjoy the same right to self-defense as a police officer? Do not citizens have the same right to defend themselves as FBI agents? For every law enforcement officer that comes into contact with a criminal there are 7,653 citizens that are victimized by criminals. A citizen is 800 times more likely to...
