- Articles
Disarmed and Unprotected by Miguel A. Faria, MD
For many years, the federal government has arrogated more power to itself at the expense of the individual states, including policing actions that should fall within the jurisdiction of state courts and not the federal judiciary. Likewise, federal government intrusion into every aspect of the lives of Americans continues at a nonstop pace.
Therefore, it is imperative for Americans to realize that centralization of the police force is an authoritarian concept that is foreign to the U.S. Constitution. Our Founding Fathers decried “standing armies” as a feature of tyrannical government. Indeed, the exercise of police powers is a prerogative reserved for the states in a decentralized federal system of government—a Constitutional Republic.
Thus, the individual states of our nation were to be “the laboratories of democracy.” And to be absolutely sure that they preserved their prerogatives, James Madison inserted the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which specifically states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, belong to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Those powers include the police powers of law enforcement in crime control, not standing federal armies. Little by little, progressive jurists have sought to erode the U.S. Constitution with pronouncements to the contrary, assuming that most Americans would be caught napping.
Increasing federal policing actions has only resulted in the militarization of both federal and local law enforcement, which in turn has been responsible for several high-profile police shootings. These shootings have been conveniently used by the sensationalist liberal media to denigrate the local police, foment racial unrest and irresponsibly incite further violence, riots, and street crime.
Incredibly, some Democrat politicians have blamed the police and sided with the street thugs. The effect of this denigration and the unrelenting attacks on local law enforcement has predictably resulted in more violence, more urban disorder, and more crime. Although FBI statistics show that “75% of serious crimes at any locality are committed by 6% of repeat criminals or felons,” it is the individual law-abiding citizen who loses his liberty, bit by bit, and suffers from gun control laws.
We know that citizens who have a concealed carry weapons (CCW) license commit very few crimes. In fact, less than one to two percent of CCW permit holders have done so, and the transgressions are usually technicalities. Yet, the suggestion by the gun prohibitionists is that citizens with lawful firearms are prone to violence and create mayhem, supposedly like in a Wild West scenario. This is not only incorrect but it is used to demonize all legal gun owners, who constitutional carry or possess concealed carry licenses.
Gun prohibitionists also misconstrue the legal dictum of “stand your ground” laws, claiming that those laws cause people to instigate shootings. For example, with caustic and inflammatory rhetoric, Siegel and Phan, two gun “researchers” in the public health establishment extolled public databases as a springboard to regulate firearms. They wrote in an article: “States are increasingly enacting laws that allow people to shoot other people as a first resort in public, instead of retreating when threatened. If a person perceives a threat of serious bodily harm, so-called ‘stand your ground’ laws, allow them to fire their gun with immunity from prosecution, as long as they are in a place they have a legal right to be.” How is that for supposedly objective phraseology coming from purportedly unbiased public data collectors?
The authors, though, were correct when they reported that between 2004 and 2017, twenty-four states enacted “stand your ground” laws. However, they failed to mention that following adoption of the law there was no increase in the rates of criminal homicides or mass shootings in those 24 states. Needless to say, that fact was deemed too “inconvenient” to be mentioned in their article because it did not fit with their preconceived notions and was contrary to what they were bent on proving.
Like other gun prohibitionists, Siegle and Pahn also misrepresented the so-called “gun show loophole” by which only licensed firearm dealers are required to do federal background checks. Again, they conveniently failed to reveal that in the past 10 years those who have committed homicides with a purchased firearm had all passed the federal background check—a fact even acknowledged by The New York Times. Additionally, several studies have demonstrated that common criminals obtain their guns almost exclusively through illegal means—such as, purchases made between known criminals or via theft, robberies, et cetera—so as not to subject themselves to the legal checks. Moreover, a U.S. Department of Justice study found that for a typical year, “among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of the offense, less than two percent bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, and 40 percent obtained their firearm from an illegal source.”
In summary, the government, assisted by gun prohibitionists—incarnated in authoritarian Democrat legislators, biased public health researchers, and the liberal media—has sought and continues to pursue the objective of disarming law-abiding citizens in piecemeal fashion. Yet, in the spring and summer of 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdowns and the George Floyd riots, the fact remains that the government did not protect lawful Americans or legal businesses from the thugs that were rioting, looting, and burning. Those days clearly demonstrated—particularly to those who had forgotten but needed to be reminded—that American citizens have and must preserve their God-given Natural and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self and family protection. The government has shown that when going gets tough, it will not protect us or our businesses and will leave citizens to the mercy of the thugs roaming the streets.
Written by Dr. Miguel Faria
Miguel A. Faria, MD is Associate Editor-in-Chief of neuropsychiatry; socioeconomics, politics, medicine, and world affairs for Surgical Neurology International (SNI). Author of Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002), Cuba’s Eternal Revolution through the Prism of Insurgency, Socialism, and Espionage (2023) and other books. This article is excerpted, updated, and edited from his book, America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements (2019).
This article may be cited as: Faria, MA. Disarmed and Unprotected. HaciendaPublishing.com, November 5, 2023. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/disarmed-and-unprotected-by-miguel-a-faria-md/
Copyright ©2023 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.
7 thoughts on “Disarmed and Unprotected by Miguel A. Faria, MD”
The fact is that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with self defense or hunting (as the forefathers couldn’t even fathom a time where it would ever be an issue) and everything to do with essentially maintaining a balance of power between the government and the citizens. The right to self defense is so inherently primal and natural that how it could be called into question is beyond any semblance of rational reasoning. The courts (including the Supreme Court) have repeated ruled that police have no duty to protect the individual (1981 decision in Warren v. District of Columbia, 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago, 2005 decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales). These decisions have basically alleviated law enforcement or the government of any responsibility for our protection. Then consider the fact that in the vast majority of the cases, that the violence has already occurred prior to the arrival of the police and essentially they are there to secure the crime scene and start the investigation. In light of the fact that they have neither the ability nor the duty to provide protection for our families and ourselves, then there is no question that the ability to provide this protection ourselves `shall not be infringed’. Anyone with half a brain can see this is not up for debate or discussion.— Bruce Bare, FB, November 9, 2023
[W]hat is right and true is also eternal, and does not begin or end with written statutes….From this point of view it can be readily understood that those who formulated wicked and unjust statutes for nations, thereby breaking their promises and agreements, put into effect anything but ‘laws.’ It may thus be clear that in the very definition of the term “law” there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true….Therefore Law is the distinction between things just and unjust, made in agreement with that primal and most ancient of all things, Nature; and in conformity to nature’s standard are framed those human laws which inflict punishment upon the wicked but defend and protect the good. — Cicero (106-43 BC) Roman statesman, lawyer, Skeptic-Stoic philosopher Optimate (traditional Republican) principles. “Father of his Country by the Roman Senate. Assassinated on the orders of Populist demagogue Marc Antony.
“And indeed, gentlemen, there exists a law, not written down anywhere but born in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”— Cicero, Roman orator, Selected Political Speeches [M. Grant translation, pg. 222, 1969).
Moreover, Most religions agree on the right to self-defense. The Catholic catechism states: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but also a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” Pope John Paul II further expounded on the natural right to self-defense, incorporating the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas, “Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason…”—Dr. Miguel Faria, America, Guns, and Freedom (2019), Chapter 18: Self-Defense: Lethal Threat May Require Protective Lethal Force
Excellent article, as usual by Dr. Faria. His book on this subject is a masterpiece. We are witnessing the “total critique of society”, which to the revolutionary, is essential to the replacement of the existing order with the New World Order. This non-reason necessitates a totalitarian system of government and the unarmed citizen is essential to accomplish this. As one responded to those who say the 2nd amendment was intended for hunters–“we are not protecting ourselves from a horde of rabid deer”! It is obvious to all but the blind and the mindless that the leftist Democratic Party now pushes this agenda with its legalizing theft by letting the nefarious Rob store up to $950 per visit with no penalty and the removal of all rights of the victim in society. What is next–outlaw all knives and then any other way to strong-arm or murder the innocent, while the elite hire private guards for protection? Already we are seeing the leftist idiots become their own laws’ victims.
I have been thinking about ‘who’ exactly our police, our local Sheriff, our National (State) Guard, U.S. Military—actually take an ‘oath’ to and to which they are obligated to obey. I found that the National Guard takes an Oath to the Governor and the Army Reserve – different from the U.S. Army,,, swear an oath to the U.S. President. It seems that the local police swear oath to the AG and in some states, to the Top State Police Commander/Executive appointed by the State Gov.
This, it does not appear that any of them swear to protect the U.S. citizen. We would do well to review this and see how the Bureaucrats have overriden the intent, possibly, of our State and U.S. Constitutions.
Unfortunately, the duty of police officers is not to prevent crime, but to apprehend criminals and bring them to justice — after a crime has been committed. Contrary to popular belief, the police do not have a legal duty to protect the public against criminals. According to several court opinions including the 1982 ruling (Bowers v. DeVito), “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. The constitution…does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” When chaos reigns guns, including “assault weapons” in the hands of lawful citizens can be helpful in protecting our homes and family. And yet they want us disarmed and leave us unprotected. Thank you for your comment.
Tremendous article by Miguel, as usual. An even brief reading of his recent book on gun control idiocy should close their case. But the truth is that every totalitarian dictatorship does this exact thing, because they are scared of the people. As it becomes evident that their rush to power was all a scam, and the people wake up, they fear for their lives and existence. For a recent example just look at Australia. Immediately after they confiscated all the guns they implemented a draconian system during the phony pandemic. The police beat and abused the people and they were helpless to resist. This is just the beginning of their control. In the US, it is now a crime to defend one’s self. In England, even to defend one’s self with a knife is a crime, even for a woman.
I agree. “In England, even to defend one’s self with a knife is a crime, even for a woman.” Indeed. They can run, scream, and use their rape alarm. We can still defend ourselves in the US at least in the free, “red” states. thank you Russell for your comments that are always very welcome!