The Lie of To Serve and Protect.

Let’s get straight to the point. This post is about gun ownership. And yes, I am specifically talking about the AR 15, the rifle that politicians and the media love to label as evil.

They tell you that you don't need a weapon like that. They tell you that self defense is best left to the professionals. They tell you that the police are there to handle the bad guys, so you don't have to.

Before I go any further, I want to be clear about something. I am in no way putting down law enforcement. I know many officers who, if they could be there when you need them, would absolutely. They view their work as a calling. But I have also met many who just think of the job as a paycheck and not a calling to serve, and frankly, they probably wouldn't help even if they could. Ive met Police Officers who just see the job title as an opportunity to get girls.

But this isn't about whether cops are good or bad people. It is about reality. Facts are facts. Police can't be everywhere at once. And honestly, neither I nor the majority of Americans would want them to be, because that would require a police state that takes away a lot of our freedoms. Since we don't want a government agent standing on every street corner 24/7, we have to accept the trade off. The trade off is that when an emergency happens, you are on your own until they get there, If they get there in time.

The Decal on the Door

People love to point out the motto "To Serve and Protect" painted on the side of police cruisers as proof that the government will save them. But ask yourself this: if I spray paint "Ferrari" on the side of a Honda Civic, does it change the engine? Does writing a phrase on a car make it true? Of course not.

That motto is nothing more than PR. It is a form of mind control that gives the public a false sense of security. "Which seems to have worked." It makes you feel safe enough to outsource your protection to the state. But if you actually look at the legal system, that motto is not a promise. It is a lie.

In the United States, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have ruled repeatedly that the police have no specific legal duty to protect individuals from harm. Their duty is to the "public at large," which effectively means they are responsible for everyone in general, but no one in particular.

The Hard Truth: The Public Duty Doctrine

At the heart of this issue is a legal principle known as the Public Duty Doctrine. It states that government services are owed to the public, not to specific individuals. Legally, this means you cannot sue the police for negligence if they fail to show up, fail to intervene, or fail to protect you from a violent criminal. They never "owed" you that protection in the first place.

If that sounds unbelievable, look at the cases where innocent people learned this the hard way.

Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)

In perhaps the most terrifying example of this doctrine, three female roommates living in Washington D.C. were home when two intruders broke in. The women heard the break in and called the police. Officers arrived, drove by, saw no obvious sign of trouble, and left without ever knocking or entering. The women called 911 again as the intruders were physically attacking their roommate downstairs. The dispatcher assured them help was on the way. Relying on that promise, the roommates came out of hiding to help their friend. But the police never came back.

For the next 14 hours, the three women were held captive, beaten, robbed, and raped.

They sued the District of Columbia for negligence. The D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

Decades later, the Supreme Court doubled down. Jessica Gonzales had a restraining order against her estranged husband, prohibiting him from seeing their three young daughters. One evening, the husband abducted the girls in violation of the order.

Jessica called the Castle Rock Police Department repeatedly. She begged them to find her husband and enforce the order. The police told her to wait and see if he brought them back. Hours passed. She called again. She went to the station in person. They told her to call back later.

At 3:20 AM, the husband drove to the police station and opened fire. He was killed in the shootout. Inside his truck, police found the bodies of the three young girls, whom he had murdered.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that the police could not be sued. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, stating that a restraining order does not entitle a citizen to a specific police action. The police violated no rights by doing nothing while those children died.

It Keeps Happening

This isn't ancient history. During the Parkland School Shooting (2018), a uniformed deputy sheriff stayed outside the building while students were being killed inside. A federal judge later ruled that the school and the Sheriff’s office had no constitutional duty to protect the students.

In Lozito v. City of New York (2011), Joseph Lozito was attacked by a serial killer on a subway train. He fought the man for his life while two NYPD officers allegedly watched from a few feet away, safely behind a door. They only came out to arrest the suspect after Lozito had disarmed and pinned him. When Lozito sued, the judge dismissed the case, citing that the police had no "special duty" to protect him.

The Fatal Flaw of Gun Control

This brings us to the uncomfortable reality of gun control.

The core premise of the anti-gun argument is almost always: "You don't need a gun; that's what the police are for."

But as we just established, that is not what the police are for.

In a civilized society, we talk about the "Social Contract," the idea that we give up the use of force to the government in exchange for security. But the courts have made it clear that this exchange is a lie. The government claims the authority to restrict what tools you can own to defend yourself, yet simultaneously claims they have no legal obligation to use their tools to defend you.

If the state refuses to guarantee your safety, they have no moral standing to restrict the means by which you ensure it yourself. By advocating for the disarmament of law-abiding citizens, gun control advocates are not making people safer. They are stripping them of their only remaining option in a system that has already abandoned them.

When you lobby to ban standard capacity magazines or restrict concealed carry, you are essentially telling a 115 pound woman that she must rely on a 911 dispatcher who has no duty to send help, and an officer who has no duty to intervene if they do arrive.

You Are Your Own Safety Net.

You are always at 100% of your own emergencies.

The takeaway from these cases is not that individual police officers are bad people; many are brave and do save lives every day. The takeaway is that the system is not designed to guarantee the individual's safety.

Police usually arrive after the crime has been committed. They are there to secure the scene, take photos, draw chalk lines, take measurements, and fill out reports. They are a cleaning crew, not a force field. If a violent criminal breaks into your home, they have brought the threat of lethal force. If you are unarmed because you believed the lie that the police would save you, you are at the mercy of a criminal's benevolence. I would not trust any Officer with defending my life or my family's.

The Supreme Court has effectively told you: "You are on your own." Therefore, any law that limits your ability to own and carry the most effective tool for self defense is a law that mandates you be a victim. You are your own first responder. Prepare accordingly.

Carl Hirt Jr