Combining the fundamental right to self-preservation with the basic postulate of liberal theory, which states that people surrender their natural rights only to the extent that they are recompensed with more effective political rights, leads to the conclusion that every gun control law must be justified in terms of the law's contribution to the personal security of the citizenry. Victims must be able to defend themselves against criminals as soon as crime strikes, and the ability to defend oneself is much more critical in poor and minority neighborhoods which are ravaged by crime and do not have adequate police protection. Since the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen, and that there is, as the Supreme Court put it, "no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen," citizens, regrettably, are put in the position of having to defend themselves. While the deterrent effect of the police surely wards off many would-be criminals (particularly in areas where police patrol more--i.e., affluent areas), the many citizens who need personal protection are forced to face the reality that the police do not and cannot function as bodyguards for ordinary people. Therefore, individuals must remain responsible for their own protection, with the police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent.
Legislation such as the melting-point laws are intended to prevent the poor from possessing a firearm even though the poor are disproportionately victims of crime. What compounds this situation is the fact that the poorer areas of cities (where most of the crime occurs) rarely get the same police protection that the more affluent areas get (where the least crime occurs). Therefore, any gun control which takes cheaper guns off the market, and thereby prevents the poor from obtaining a handgun, is arguably doubly unfair. Like it or not, gun ownership is legal in most parts of the country, and as long as we find racial and socioeconomic discrimination by our lawmakers offensive (and have a constitution which makes it illegal), there can be no place for laws whose primary effect is to deprive the poor of their legal right to choose the same means of protection available to those who can more easily afford it. [Emphasis mine]
