It's pretty predictable that at some point when the Obama administration really kicks their anti-Constitutional Rights gun banning program into gear that we'll all be told a number of things. The one I'm waiting to hear, because it always gets trotted out, is that individuals have no need to have guns since the Police will protect us. Oh really?
I know a lot of Police Officers and I do believe they do their best to protect our lives and property, but all of them will admit it's just not possible for them to be everywhere and protect everyone. However, let's set that aside for the moment and ask a different question. Do the Police even have an obligation to protect the individual? Seems like a no brainer since the anti-rights gun banners assure us that's what the Police are for....they're wrong....AGAIN. It turns out that "Police are under no legal obligation to provide protection for any individual." Courts have ruled the police have an obligation only to society as a whole. (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 1981 ). Surprised?
Self Defense is your birthright and unless you're the world's foremost Kung-Fu Master who is capable of beating a criminal gang single-handedly while dodging bullets and swords, a gun is still your best bet. Furthermore, if Police are under no legal obligation to protect you then whose obligation is it? That's right, it's yours.