Homeland
Security
vs.
Home/Land
Security
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher
Fort Fairfield Journal, August 29, 2018
When George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security nearly two decades ago, I thought that was the biggest joke on us since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. The very idea of the formidable-sounding name conjures up images of a broad, overarching government running a clean, efficient apparatus to keep everyone in the U.S. safe. Anyone who has had the misfortune of dealing with the government on anything will attest that is not a realistic view. Ask any military veteran or Social Security recipient who is trying to work with a government bureaucrat to work out their problems and you will quickly realize that perhaps the government shouldn’t be so readily relied upon for your own personal safety. After all, when seconds count, the police are always minutes away.
The only thing government does with any degree of repeatable efficiency is take peoples’ money and put people in prison. When it comes to keeping you safe and secure, outside of a prison inmate environment, the U.S. Supreme Court says you’re essentially on your own because the police have no legal requirement to protect you (more on that later).
SURVEILLANCE
DEPENDENCE SYNDROME
I’m sure by now that most of you have seen television commercials where a burglar tries to break into a home, the alarm goes off, he runs away and the mother and her kids are shown helplessly huddled together like a bunch of deer stuck in headlights talking on the phone with the surveillance company. Notice I used the word surveillance, not “security,” because such companies do not have the capacity to keep you secure - just under surveillance, or watched over.
The other commercial that gives me pause is the radio spot where a pathetically helpless motorist is dumbfounded by the simplest of problems and pushes a little button, waiting for a friendly voice via satellite to come on and tell him what to do.
What a sad state our society is in when we have become so helplessly stupid and dependent that we can’t exercise the common sense to even come in out of the rain without someone telling us how to do it. I call this societal problem; “Surveillance Dependence Syndrome” (SDS).
SDS is afflicting millions across this country. Fortunately, not all of us suffer from SDS. I have noticed police in this area generally respond to SDS calls, as with many others, using the same common sense approach my dad taught me. Hopefully the police won’t watch or listen to those types of commercials too closely, or they may begin to suffer from SDS and begin whining and sucking their thumbs while waiting for someone else to come and exercise common sense for them - like a growing segment of the public is currently being trained to do.
POLICE NOT LEGALLY
REQUIRED TO PROTECT US
What if, in that television commercial just mentioned, the burglar didn’t run away when the alarm went off? The helpless, unarmed housewife might be waiting up to fifteen minutes for a police officer to arrive to “protect” her with his firearm. Meanwhile she could potentially be raped, shot, or stabbed...all while her kids are watching. Maybe the family could sue the police for not protecting her. WRONG! The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no legal requirement to protect anybody’s life! (see DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty Soc. Svs Dept. 489 US 189; also Warren v. District of Columbia 441 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct of App 1981)
Most cops are good people and would like to protect the citizenry from harm, but they are not legally required to do so. They can’t be everywhere all the time.
HOME/LAND SECURITY
Because the police can’t be everywhere at all times and they are not legally required to protect us, it is prudent to see what they use to offer us a semblance of “protection” and adopt similar measures for our own situations. Let’s see, what does a cop have that bad guys don’t like? Is it the pretty blue light? Nope. The tin badge? Nope. How about the gun? Yep, it’s the gun.
I have concluded that bad guys don’t like pain, ergo they don’t like being shot. That’s why cops are so effective at scaring the bad guys - the cops have guns. If it works for the cops, why can’t it work for each and every one of us (properly trained, of course.)
What if, while I'm working in my office, a burglar smashes my window out with a crow bar? I can be fairly certain that he isn’t there to sell me a magazine subscription. His overt act will give me reason to believe he may do my family and me harm, I can go to the next phase of my Home/Land Security: I dial 9-11, and if I feel my life is in danger, grab my 12-gauge shotgun. 9-11 is a useful tool for getting a time/date stamp on the record that you are experiencing a problem. The cops will always show up, whether you speak into the phone, or not.
I like shotguns for Home/Land Security for several reasons; They are large and intimidating to an intruder who is attempting to do me harm, since the shot pellets fan out when fired; I don’t have to be tremendously accurate in order to get the “bad guy” (note: although I hit 39 out of 40 targets with an M16 when I trained for the US Army); and generally speaking, I might not have to fire - once the intruder sees I have a 12 gauge that usually shifts his priorities and he is no longer a threat.
Several words of caution, though: Firing in an enclosed area (such as your home) will increase the likelihood of hearing impairment. I know they do it on TV and in the movies, but those aren't real guns firing real bullets (most of the bullet sounds are added to the movie's soundtrack in post-production months after the video has been captured, but I digress.) Never fire a gun inside unless you have proper hearing protection. Your family members can stick their fingers in their ears, but you should have some of those foam earplugs readily available if you don’t want to potentially go deaf after firing your weapon.
Deadly force should only be used to meet deadly force when it's presented. Maine statutes DO NOT cover (nor does Biblical scripture) use of deadly force to prevent theft of property. One must have an articulable, reasonable fear for life or limb. This must withstand scrutiny in the courts. You should read Maine statutes thoroughly. Never shoot unless you have to save a life from an aggressor. It is always a good thing to call the police to handle the situation, if at all possible. After all, the cleaning, repairing and the unfortunate litigation that can result can become quite monotonous.
Despite the legalities involved it is also worthy to consider the life-long psychological implications of having taken a human life as well. These are of course unpredictable and can be quite devastating in some cases. Their unpredictability alone makes them worthy of serious consideration. Not everyone has the mindset or mental equipment to be able to handle such situations, even if legally okay.
Also worthy of consideration as effective alternatives in situations not requiring deadly force would be the use of pepper spray or tazers. The point being that the means of self defense are available in many forms and need not be restricted to firearms alone.
While concealed carry permits, and their accompanying handgun safety courses are no longer required in Maine, it is still a good idea to seek out a qualified handgun safety instructor and take their course if you plan to integrate deadly force into your home/land security platform.
SWORD
A new cell phone app developed by Los Angeles-based Royal Holdings called SWORD will purportedly allow the user to body scan another person up to thirty feet away in order to determine if that person is carrying a concealed weapon. Proponents believe this will make us all safer by showing us who has a concealed weapon. However, consider it from another perspective: What happens when a criminal gets his hands on this technology (it is available to private businesses, not just law enforcement)? He will then be able to determine which one of his potential victims is in fact carrying a firearm, then pick the softer targets who are not carrying concealed weapons. Do you want to be the one he identifies as having no way to defend yourself? This technology must not be quickly embraced or adopted because it is indeed a double-edged sword (pun intended) that can be used as both a benefit and a detriment to society.
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
The Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms does not apply just to hunters. That's not even what the founders were considering when they penned it. It applies to a well-regulated militia. While most liberals say the militia is now the U.S. military, that's not entirely true. In both the U.S. Code and many state's statutes (such as Maine's) the militia is defined as the whole body of people in society, within a given age group, who could be called forth for defense of their towns or state. This may come as a shock to most gun-hating liberals, but I invite those who are at least intellectually honest to look up Maine Revised Statutes, Title 37-B sections 222-224.
I don’t hunt. I buy all my meat at the IGA. I do own some guns and an assortment of ammo, though. I originally purchased my 12-gauge shotgun over eighteen years ago for the specific purpose of Home/Land Security. I have never pointed it at another person for any reason (I'm a lover, not a fighter). I have also never had an intruder break in to threaten my family, or me either. So, all you gun-hating liberals out there who think my guns are the reason for the world's problems, better come up with a better argument or shut your mouths. I'm tired of listening to your worn-out arguments for “reasonable gun laws.” There’s nothing reasonable about disarming society or reducing our ability to defend ourselves from common street thugs.
My guns have never been used in a crime and they don't get up and dance around the yard by themselves when they get tired or bored. So don’t come at me with the “guns kill people” argument. Guns are inanimate objects. Like any tool, they need a someone to operate them. Like any tool which is controlled by a human, they can be used for good, or for evil. I'm sick and tired of hearing from crybaby liberals how we all need to disarm ourselves, make ourselves into a nation of whimpering victims sitting around waiting for the police to arrive while criminals have their way with us. If these people think being disarmed is so great, then I invite them to move to Venezuela or North Korea to see how that idea is working out for those poor people suffering under regimes run by criminals - with those criminals being the only ones allowed to legally possess firearms.
