Erik Espina from the Manila Bulletin reminds us that we should look at the real motives behind gun control:
“When presidents begin to disallow ownership or the carrying of its own citizens of the means to protect themselves; when governments begin suspecting its own citizens as part of the peril to law & order, because they are registered/legal holders or carriers of guns, then it is time for the sovereign people to be suspicious of the motives of such prohibition.”
Read the full article in Manila Bulletin: Permit to carry, first defense.
As I said on radio yesterday, in an ideal society wherein the police are very efficient and capable of preventing and resolving crime, i would agree to a total gun. In such case, we would no longer need to carry firearms for defense. The State, should take the cudgels for protecting its citizenry. However, when the police are incapable of maintaining peace and order and criminals rob, kill, rape, and kidnap the citizens with impunity, then it becomes apparent that the crime situation is not under control and that the police cannot solve the problem of crime or protect the people as they should.
In which case, the situation calls for plan “B”. Civilians have an inherent right to defend and protect themselves, and such right may not be curtailed by the State. This right of self-protection is recognized by statutory and moral law. The Constitution also recognizes the OBLIGATION of the State to protection of life liberty and property of its citizens. But when the state abdicates this obligation and at times the tho/se who are sworn to protect the citizens are themselves the criminals, then we have the right to arm ourselves.