Photo via Pixabay
Taos County in New Mexico made a strong stance in favor of the Second Amendment a while back. It was brave and bold, worth of respect.
The Taos County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 at a regular meeting Tuesday (March 19) to repeal a controversial resolution passed earlier in March that expressed opposition to new gun control measures proposed in the state Legislature this year.
In its place, the commission passed a new resolution that commits the county to protecting “the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment while also protecting the rights of citizens to be protected from Senseless firearm related deaths that happen all too frequently in our Country,” it reads.
The new resolution was crafted by Commissioner Gabriel Romero, who reversed his position on the prior resolution after voting to approve it two weeks ago. He told a large audience of county residents gathered in the commission chambers Tuesday morning that he had changed his position after careful reconsideration.
“Never in the last 16 years have I felt like I made the wrong decision until a couple weeks ago, when we voted on the first resolution,” he said, noting that he had not been pressured by anyone into changing his stance on the resolution.
Romero along with commissioners Jim Fambro and Mark Gallegos had voted to pass the gun rights resolution, which was first proposed in February by Taos County Sheriff Jerry Hogrefe. Commissioners Candyce O’Donnell and Tom Blankenhorn voted against the resolution.
The sheriff had modeled the document after a similar resolution passed in 25 other New Mexico counties, where law enforcement and local citizens expressed concern regarding the constitutionality of certain gun control bills debated at this year’s legislative session, which ended on Saturday (March 16).
While the new resolution says it will protect the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment, the rest makes it clear that they will still embrace some degree of gun control. That’s a problem.
The Second Amendment doesn’t provide any wiggle room. The only way you can claim that would be to completely misunderstand the amendment, and I’ve addressed that before.
When anyone tries to balance the Second Amendment with the “rights of citizens to be protected from senseless firearm-related deaths,” what they’re saying is that they believe the right to keep and bear arms is elastic, that it can be stretched as needed. That’s not accurate. Instead, what will happen is the Second Amendment will be eroded as new gun control is embraced by the county.
I’m not going to say that people don’t have a right to live. They do.
What they don’t have is the right “to be protected.” Such a right does not exist. If it did, the police would be required to protect you. The courts have argued over and over that they have no such duty. If they don’t, then how is anyone else supposed to protect me and mine?
There is no protection possible, anyway. That’s what these people don’t get. There’s no protection from maniacs and thugs. Evil people will continue to be evil. We’ve seen it in Brazil. We’ve seen it in New Zealand. We’ve seen it in the Netherlands. These are all nations with stricter gun control than we have here but have had mass shootings within the span of a week.
There is no protection. There’s only the right to keep and bear arms and the “right” to beg for your life before someone puts a bullet between your eyes.