Quote of the day–Phil Mendelson

The Supreme Court in Heller struck a balance between the right of individuals to protect themselves and the right of individuals to be protected. If we so limit gun control as to favor individuals to protect themselves, but then disadvantage the right of individuals to be protected by the police, what will we have gained for the public good?


Phil Mendelson
An at-large member of the D.C. Council and chairman of the council’s Committee on Public Safety & the Judiciary.
D.C. Vote: This Is About Safety, Not the 2nd Amendment
March 22, 2009
[People don’t have a right to be protected by the police. Nowhere in the constitution, the law, or in court rules can you find such a “right”. Just the opposite in fact. The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals. This is just the worst of the lies in this article. Read the rest and be sure to take your blood pressure meds first–Joe]

One thought on “Quote of the day–Phil Mendelson

  1. Being close to Oakland, I have to wonder if two more police officers would still be drawing breath if an armed citizen had taken out that parole violating gun-toting thug immediately after the first pair were shot.

    BTW: Note that the shooter was a convicted felon on parole. Last I checked they weren’t supposed to have weapons.

    BBTW: I don’t think that ordinary folks get permits to carry in Oakland.

    BBBTW: He shot the SWAT folks with an “Assault Weapon”. Sooooo how is that Kaleefornica “Assault Weapon Ban” working out?

    feh… When guns are outlawed, only…”

Comments are closed.