Ray Kelly credit: www.brown.edu

Ray Kelly
credit: http://www.brown.edu

I’m always fascinated—and disgusted—by police executives that take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, and then, like Barack Obama, denigrate and ignore each and every part of that document of which they disapprove. CNBC has an illustrative story:

Former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said Monday he’s against allowing civilians easier access to guns, even in the face of increased fear about a Paris-style terror attack in the United States.

‘I’m not totally in support of more guns,’ Kelly told CNBC’s ‘Squawk Box,’ citing the accuracy rate in police-involved shootings within the NYPD as a reason to be wary of arming everyday Americans.

‘Police officers, who are highly trained, strike their targets only 20 percent of the time,’ he said. ‘So if you have civilians out there with guns that perhaps they’ve only fired once or maybe even never fired and they’re in a tumultuous situation with the adrenaline flowing, you want them out there shooting their guns? I think you have to think hard about that whole issue.

This is reminiscent of DC Police Chief Kathy Lanier who recently urged citizens to attack when terrorists attack, but simultaneously continues to deny all but a very well-connected handful concealed carry licenses, in direct violation of the Constitution. New York City remains an island where the Second Amendment is all but suspended, and as with DC, reserved only for the wealthy and well connected.

Not only does Kelly have no respect for the Constitution and the unalienable rights of Americans, he’s delusional as well:

The city [NYC] is still the No. 1 terrorist target, he said. ‘If they were able to come to New York and do anything at all, it would be a major feather in their cap. Certainly it’s a possibility of an attack here.’

‘We’re surrounded by soft targets,’ he continued. ‘We live in an open society. We’re vulnerable.’

But Kelly said, ‘We’re safer … than we’ve been let’s say five years ago. The police department [and] federal agencies continue to refine, to hone their skills.

Ah! So all of the resources of the NYPD will be present at the time and place of any attack? There will be no civilian casualties? But didn’t he suggest the feds and local agencies would intercept terrorist threats? Is he trying to have things both ways? On one hand, we’re safer because the authorities are refining and honing their skills, but on the other, we’re surrounded by soft targets, live in an open society and are vulnerable. So, of course, we don’t want mere citizens running around with guns!

And what about Kelly’s commentary on the police? Despite being highly trained, they can’t shoot worth a damn, so rather than training police officers better, we have to deny everyone else the most effective means of self-defense?

Return with me now, gentle readers, to those thrilling days of yesteryear, specifically August of 2012, where I began a three part series on how and why the NYPD routinely shoots innocent citizens, in one case, shooting nine while simultaneously taking down a murder suspect. This article—New York City Police Shoot Up The Citizenry Again–speaks to yet another shooting outrage. Shooting at a bad guy, the hapless NYC cops—well, here’s the important excerpt:

It’s hard to imagine a worse public relations debacle.  Two officers fire three rounds, completely missing their target, and shoot two innocent women, one of whom is already crippled and in need of a walker, and they shoot her–where else?–in the leg.

The article has links to the first three articles, and readers might also want to visit these articles:

NYC Cops: Adding Insult To Injury

Can the NYPD Ever Stop Shooting Innocents? 

While Kelly was instrumental, with Rudy Guliani, in pacifying NYC—hard work that current Mayor Bill de Blasio has thrown away as criminals once again run riot in the Big Apple—in this he is no different from other self-imagined elites. Only they are qualified to exercise the fundamental right to self-defense. Only their lives are truly valuable, whether the threat is common criminals, or terrorists.

I’ve thought hard about the whole issue Mr. Kelly, and I’m certain you’re an elitist that cares about the lives of individual Americans only in the abstract. Probably, Kelly doesn’t see himself that way, but it’s the inevitable consequence of denying individuals the best means to protect their very lives.