Mark_C
Established Member
There has been so much jurisprudence based on the “Equal Protection Under the Law” section of the 14th Amendment but it seems that no-one ever applies it in cases against gun control. Most gun control affects only the average citizen (the little people as the elites would say) but they always allow the rich, famous, and powerful to surround themselves with men armed with firearms which a regular citizen cannot purchase. These security guards are not typically martial-arts specialists or professional boxers or fighters, so it is THE GUN that is the basis of the protection of those employing armed security. It is the utilization of a gun that protects their life and property, regardless that the utilization of that firearm is via proxy (the security agent).
If they are allowed protection by the utilization of a firearm, then it is a CLEAR breach of the Equal Protection clause for them to deny others the opportunity to utilize firearms in the protection of those other’s lives and property. It is EXPLICITLY assigning a higher value to the life of one person than another and this inequity is CREATED by the law.
We know that there is not true equality between people. Some are born with abilities, skills, personalities, and sometimes inheritance that give them an advantage but the law can never effectively solve that inequality. However, the law is required to facilitate equality within the context that is under its purview and it is definitely within the control of the government to NOT create laws that prevent the average person from enjoying the most possible protection against violence perpetrated upon them by another person. If they remove the God-given and innate right of the average citizen to protect their lives from dangers presented both by men and wild animals, then to satisfy the Equal Protection clause, they must eliminate the utilization of firearms for EVERYONE, including the president, his family, past presidents, all other politicians, all celebrities, and even the police.
The military would be unaffected as long as they only utilized firearms in defense of the nation. The nation is not an individual under the citizen’s implicit contract but is the aggregate of all citizens for which the government is the representative to other nations. The use of firearms against enemy nations facilitates equal protection for citizenry.
If they are allowed protection by the utilization of a firearm, then it is a CLEAR breach of the Equal Protection clause for them to deny others the opportunity to utilize firearms in the protection of those other’s lives and property. It is EXPLICITLY assigning a higher value to the life of one person than another and this inequity is CREATED by the law.
We know that there is not true equality between people. Some are born with abilities, skills, personalities, and sometimes inheritance that give them an advantage but the law can never effectively solve that inequality. However, the law is required to facilitate equality within the context that is under its purview and it is definitely within the control of the government to NOT create laws that prevent the average person from enjoying the most possible protection against violence perpetrated upon them by another person. If they remove the God-given and innate right of the average citizen to protect their lives from dangers presented both by men and wild animals, then to satisfy the Equal Protection clause, they must eliminate the utilization of firearms for EVERYONE, including the president, his family, past presidents, all other politicians, all celebrities, and even the police.
The military would be unaffected as long as they only utilized firearms in defense of the nation. The nation is not an individual under the citizen’s implicit contract but is the aggregate of all citizens for which the government is the representative to other nations. The use of firearms against enemy nations facilitates equal protection for citizenry.
