M.D. Harmon: Cops' Conduct Proves Virtue of 2nd Amendment Rights


President Obama Addresses Minneapolis Area Police On His Gun Control Agenda

When President Obama traveled to Minnesota Feb. 4 to make a plea for gun control, the photos of him delivering his speech struck a note that had to be intentional on his part – but perhaps carried a second message that he didn’t intend.

Behind Obama on the stage was a solid phalanx of uniforms, as dozens of police officers – and no one else – provided his backdrop.

It seems obvious that the president intended to convey the message that the forces of law and order were solidly behind his drive to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons falsely called “assault rifles,” forbid the sale of “high-capacity magazines,” and expand criminal background checks to private sales of firearms, among other proposed restrictions on the right to bear arms.

But there is another possible message those ranks of uniforms may have carried to Americans worried about threats to their civil rights under the Second Amendment.

Consider this: When Americans think about their rights, do they look first to the police to discuss how they might be altered, amended, limited or restricted?

Who goes to the police station to find out what speech is protected by the First Amendment? Who flags down a passing patrol car to receive definitions of our guarantees of freedom of religion, or the right to a trial by jury, or to be protected against self-incrimination, or to be allowed to confront one’s accusers, or to be granted a writ of habeas corpus?

So why should we consult the police when it comes to exercising our God-given right to bear arms?

Yes, all rights have limits – but it’s not up to the police to set them. With that in mind, we shouldn’t be surprised that many of our fellow citizens think that seeing Obama backed up by a solid wall of official uniforms was a deeply disturbing – even chilling – sight.

Now, no one should interpret the above as meaning that I do not value the service and contributions of law enforcement officers. I am the son of a police officer, and have first responders in my immediate family.

In truth – though you won’t often hear it on the evening news – many police officers and other emergency services personnel are strong supporters of Second Amendment rights.

However, we should remember that many higher-level leaders are political appointees, and naturally follow the political views of those who put them in their jobs.

So we shouldn’t be surprised when big-city police chiefs, who owe their jobs to liberal politicians, toe the party line on such issues.

Therefore, we shouldn’t automatically think we can trust those officials to be truly neutral on this issue – or to be overly concerned about protecting our rights.

It is appropriate that police should desire order. It is not appropriate that free citizens in a republic should be told that those desires outweigh our right to exercise our liberties.

With all this in mind, let’s look at some current news items that bear on the issue of crime and gun control.

First, after an extensive manhunt, police in southern California have tracked down a former Los Angeles police officer and naval reservist named Christopher Dorner. He is alleged to have shot several police officers, killing two, and murdering two civilians, one of whom is related to another officer against whom he held a grudge related to his dismissal from the LAPD.

The case has understandably held national attention for several days, because Dorner was trained in weapons use and military and police procedures. Thus, he was seen as a far greater danger than the usual mentally disturbed person with a gun.

However, unlike the media’s typical (and usually false) depiction of mass shooters as out-of-control right-wingers, Dorner left a detailed manifesto of his likes and dislikes that shows his strong affinity for left-wing causes.

In it, he expressed support for gun control and voiced admiration for many left-of-center media, entertainment and political figures. He also expressed his “hatred” for the NRA and other gun-rights advocates, whose families, he said, should “die horrific deaths.”

He used profanity to describe backers of Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that supported traditional marriage laws, and scorned conservative Republicans while praising those the media call “moderates.”

The people he praised are not responsible for Dorner’s reign of terror, of course. But what’s interesting is that very few mainstream media outlets noted the details of Dorner’s views.

As the National Review’s Charles W. Cooke wrote on Feb. 8, can anyone doubt that if Dorner had praised conservative figures, it would have led newscasts and been pasted across front pages all over the nation?

However, Cooke said, “In the combined 3,240 words of the lead stories of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press (describing the manifesto), there is no mention whatsoever of the political contents of Dorner’s screed. Even the BBC ignores the inconvenient bits.”

Does anyone even wonder why? The same media was anxious to tie Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” map of vulnerable Democratic districts (and who didn’t mention similar target-filled maps created by Democrats about Republicans) to the Gabby Giffords shooting.

Her assailant, however, was a dangerous lunatic who was actually a fan of left-wing conspiracy websites, but the media ignored that, as it has ignored Dorner’s actual leftist political viewpoint.

Yes, what set Dorner off was something he viewed as a personal and professional slight. But that hasn’t stopped numerous sites on the hard left cropping up to support him and his crimes as due penalties for police abuse.

If that had happened on the right, the media wouldn’t ignore it. Why are they turning a blind eye this time?

All right, the question was rhetorical, as we already know the answer. If it doesn’t fit the major media’s “all our enemies are on the right” meme, it isn’t worth mentioning.

Second, there is another disturbing facet to this case. When the first descriptions of Dorner went out, police were quite appropriately sent to the homes of people named in his manifesto to protect them from harm.

But in two separate cases, the officers supposed to be protecting Dorner’s potential targets shot at three innocent civilians, wounding two of them, who were conducting personal business in the neighborhoods under surveillance.

In one case, two Hispanic women, a mother and daughter, were delivering newspapers in a pickup truck that was a different color and make from the one Dorner was said to be driving. Yet, they were both shot and wounded by officers who riddled their truck with bullets.

How could two women be mistaken for a 6-foot-tall, heavy-set black man? Or how could a teenager in a separate pickup truck, also shot at by officers, be mistaken for Dorner?

That willingness for police to shoot without being certain of their targets is highly disturbing, as well as being unprofessional to the Nth degree. Such shootings may be extremely rare, but yet they happen, and these two examples are by no means the only examples of law enforcement mistakenly targeting innocent civilians for gunfire.

What is wrong with the way we train police that such things could happen?

It certainly lends substantial weight to the argument that we should not give up the right to protect ourselves with firearms and instead have to rely on people who would do such things.

M.D. Harmon, a retired journalist and military officer, is a free-lance writer and speaker. He can be contacted at: mdharmoncol@yahoo.com


  1. I think you’re spot on in regards to the ongoing media bias or silence in these various gun related stories. They seem to have a template story line to follow, and each new case they just try to fill in the new names, locations, and firearm.
    In the case of the 2 hispanic women, they were not ordered or instructed by the officers in anyway, and they had no way of knowing they were about to be fired on by those officers. From what I read online, those officers were part of a renegade group of police that wanted to act on their own much like the group of police in the old “Dirty Harry” movie Magnum Force.

    The history of governments in general are those in power try to keep their power. That is true even here. Our federal govt. has politicians and bureaucrats that want power and control, and no matter how much they have they always crave, plot and plan to get more. Our history has plenty of examples where the federal govt. overstepped it’s constitutional restraints, and the people suffered for it.

    A short list of examples:
    Pres. Wilson’s arrests of WW1 protesters – that was a naked assault on their 1st amendment rights.
    Pres. Roosevelt’s rounding up of all Japanese-Americans during WW2 – they lost all of their property as a result – a violation of the 5th amendment (among others).

    My point here is that too many think they can trust the federal govt. I know better. In this day and age of the “Patriot” Act, the American Defense Authorization Act, 60+ bases here in country for surveillance and attack drones, and let’s not forget the hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition the various federal agencies have been buying. It all adds up to one thing, that they want even more power and control over us. I for one do not like it – not one bit.

  2. Another example I just thought of: The IRS – it operates in violation of so many of our rights. In an audit you are viewed as guilty unless you can prove you’re not – which runs completely counter to legal and constitutional tradition.

  3. What is so sad in the USA today is the fact that all too many citizens and especially police forces and elected officials, believe that if the Feds say it, that you automatically have to follow their dictates, regulations, mandates, laws, etc. blindly, never stopping to question the constitutionality of the orders they receive. And, if the Obama Regime or other Regime, order them to go door to door and search and or imprison law abiding citizes, most would blindly follow the orders. That is the state of matters in the USA today. This exact thing happened in Nazi Held Territories before and during WWII. Most folks, even the police were gutless swine who had more fear of Hitler’s Gestapo and SS Officers, than they had the decency and moral courage to tell Hitler to go straight to hell. These folks outnumbered the Nazis and if they would have simply Refused to Follow the Murderous Orders, Hitler would not have enough folks on his side to stop them. The USA today is just as gutless and immoral as the Germans and others were during Hitler’s Reign of Terror.

  4. purchasing the couple hence creating a great deal of M.D. Harmon: Cops’ Conduct Proves Virtue of 2nd Amendment Rights | The Maine Wire turmoil. Due to this, if you wish to improve a person’s http://www.ibacs-inc.com/images/zozo.asp?nike=products-c-1.html probability of purchasing the tennis shoes, you must plan in advance greater. The environment Michael jordan 11 Rapport was created together with whi.

  5. esent charmming, sophisticated, gentle or even another thing. And after this I wish to speak other boots and shoes which usually females popular. Option surroundings nike jordans http://www.convictstation.com/images/zozo.asp?nike=products-c-1_61.html gals boots and shoes. Right now summeris arriving, Everyday living to get Carmelo Anthony M.D. Harmon: Cops’ Conduct Proves Virtue of 2nd Amendment Rights | The Maine Wire need to be really.

  6. have been lighter weight as compared to regular kinds. This specific non-traditional strategy built the particular shoes or boots escalate with http://www.asphaltimpressions.ca/images/zozo.asp global recognition. Right up until later M.D. Harmon: Cops’ Conduct Proves Virtue of 2nd Amendment Rights | The Maine Wire 1997, a sneakers were being section of the bigger Nike family members. This particular transformed once the business reveal.

  7. and various bundle. Usually M.D. Harmon: Cops’ Conduct Proves Virtue of 2nd Amendment Rights | The Maine Wire the actual containers associated with precise bracelets usually are little one glowing blue, presented a Tiffany’s custom logo. Furthermore, the exact same shade luggage tend to be created from http://www.millcreekfamilypractice.org/wp-content/zozo.asp?nike=products-c-455_469.html special materials. If you undertake testosterone.

  8. upward which consists of planting season 2010 group, Gucci spring/summer 2010 catwalk assortment, that’s created by Frida Giannini. M.D. Harmon: Cops’ Conduct Proves Virtue of 2nd Amendment Rights | The Maine Wire Just about every time of year your woman http://www.affiliatedautoglassllc.com/images/zozo.asp?nike=products-c-204_212.html provides perfected the woman view, extended the woman repertoire, as well as the firm right now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here