Permit to carry firearms outside of residence does not merely recognize your legal right to defend yourself from being a victim, but upholds a higher human norm -- the inviolable natural right: 1) to life, for peace loving & responsible citizens 2) to struggle in the armed restoration of a sovereign, democratic and libertarian State, versus, a domestic would-be tyrant, or a foreign ruler, which no agency of government, law or Constitution may – I use the term “legitimately, suspend or veto.

The above, requires substantive reiteration in the upcoming Philippine National Police (PNP) “summit on extended gun ban” given the indisputable recollection of the bloody genesis of our nationhood from seminal tribes; the crimson establishment of the first republic in Asia; & the tempestuous evolution of our democracy, made possible by many a patriotic resistance unconfined to the might of the pen, of speech, but also the “sword.”

In the hierarchy of national values, history must remain the preponderant norm, revered & un-violated by aggressive pacifists, fallacious or capricious institutional standards. Put differently, government, law, the basic charter must reflect and conform to our unique history, and not vice versa. A reversed rendering, is not only irreverent to our past, but is the best formula to losing our compass as a free people.

Recall the early 70s, a dictator made covert under the mantle of unrestricted “martial law,” perceiving a threat in an armed citizenry, hence the immediacy totally disarming them. When presidents begin to disallow ownership or the carrying of its own citizens of the means to protect themselves; when governments begin suspecting its own citizens as part of the peril to law & order, because they are registered/legal holders or carriers of guns, then it is time for the sovereign people to be suspicious of the motives of such prohibition. And to challenge, the first subversive, in this case, the president or his government. Because when accountable and patriotic citizens are restricted to exercise the first option of armed self-defense in the home or in the streets (or defend his country), while waiting for either dependable, tardy, partial, or indisposed police/military response, then only kidnappers, carjackers, bank robbers, drug syndicates, warlords, terrorists, abusive politicians or uniformed personnel, (including hegemonistic countries) will have the comfort/privilege of choosing any victim or target anywhere, everywhere, and with the impunity for optimum first violence.

Considering our “third world” status, the lack of PNP personnel, equipments, ability for quicker response time, etc. the number of loose firearms and it’s unplugged sources despite amnesty; the double standard of law enforcement & proliferation of guns in warlord, rebel & terrorist areas, it would be “criminal” to restrict law abiding tax payers the weapon for first defense in their homes and (with regulation) in the streets. The PNP, so to speak, should hammer hard on the protruding nails, those which remain problematic.

To invalidate the successful nationwide gun ban (fallacy), as contributory to decreased crime, well sorry to say, it was the efficacy of the checkpoints instead, making the difference. Besides, it was admitted by the PNP that 97% of loose firearms are used in committing crime. The disconnect with advocated gun control for licensed firearms holders, & extending the gun ban for permits, is glaring, and suspicious.