The aim is to establish a group of people who can activate and protect the community in the event of a disaster or other adverse circumstance. Needless to say, this action has elicited concerns from some in the community – especially Democratic politicians who think government officials are the only ones who should be allowed to carry firearms and defend their communities.

The new force has drawn vocal opposition in this well-to-do Long Island county, which is one of the country’s safest, protected by one of the largest police departments. It has plunged Nassau into a national debate about authoritarianism in an election season that some see as a fork in the road for American democracy.

Mr. Blakeman said in an interview that the program was about “providing another layer of protection” for residents. “I didn’t want to be in a situation where we had a major emergency and we needed help and people were not properly vetted or trained,” he said.

But critics have accused him of creating, with little notice or explanation, an unsanctioned militia answering only to him. They called the move especially dangerous amid heightened fears of political violence, and as Mr. Trump promulgates plans for mass deportations and quashing dissent.

So, here’s a question: Where the hell does it require members of the citizenry to give anyone “notice” before forming a group – whether it is a militia or not? If someone like Blakeman seeks to recruit community members to help in the event of an emergency, then what’s the problem? What if these folks had decided to simply form a group on their own outside of the purview of the state? Would that be more palatable to the complainers?

Blakeman is also being accused of trying to establish his own private army to do evil conservative things in the city.

Sabine Margolis, an I.T. program manager from Great Neck, said that Mr. Blakeman was using the pretext of an emergency response team to create a “clandestine armed presence.” Her online petition called “Stop Bruce Blakeman’s Personal Nassau County Militia” has received more than 2,600 signatures, and opponents have held rallies pillorying both the program and the lack of details on training, scope of recruitment and parameters of the deputies’ duties.

So what? Margolis can gather all the signatures she wants. It would not prohibit a group of people from forming a group – even if they are gun owners. This would be like gathering signatures for a petition aimed at preventing people from saying, “I hate Democrats.” The First Amendment protects this statement just as the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, people are allowed to peacefully assemble and be armed regardless of whether it is under the auspices of the government.

The report notes that the official is being accused of political motivation because he has taken decidedly right-leaning stances on various issues.

Mr. Blakeman dismissed criticism that the program is politically motivated, but it has provoked a more forceful reaction than his previous provocations. He has railed against bail reform, migrants and mask mandates, has called Democrats like Gov. Kathy Hochul soft on crime and has portrayed Nassau County as besieged by lawlessness — and used neighboring New York City as a cautionary example.

This is yet another non-sequitur. Blakeman’s group may or may not be politically motivated. Indeed, maybe he is only doing this to appeal to his base and seek higher office. But it doesn’t matter. The Second Amendment does not say, “shall not be infringed unless folks are politically motivated.”

But wait, it gets even better!

Critics claim that “giving police powers to civilian gun owners could result in accidental shootings and is an implied threat to minorities and political enemies.” Of course they make this argument. No amount of leftist whining would be complete without pretending that this will somehow result in the oppression of minorities.

“It’s fear-mongering, and it’s very damaging to people,” said Delia DeRiggi-Whitton, the Democratic minority leader of the County Legislature.

“It’s the opposite way we want to be going, a private militia with guns,” she said. “We’re trying to work on gun control, rather than promote them.”

Mr. Blakeman said he created the force so that “in an emergency, if we required them to protect infrastructure or government buildings or schools or hospitals, that would free up our police.”

Where is the danger? Did Blakeman threaten anyone? Merely having guns does not constitute a threat, at least not to rational people. Moreover, accusing him of “fearmongering” is rich, considering that DeRiggi-Whitton is trying to make the community afraid of people who happen to be gun owners. It is also worth noting the brazen hypocrisy of accusing Blakeman of politicking when critics are actively promoting gun control legislation.

The report also brings up comments the executive made when he brought up the possibility of rioting “to a level where they were burning buildings.”

So, let’s get this straight. It is perfectly fine for people to riot as they did during the George Floyd protests, but it is somehow wrong for law-abiding folks to be prepared to defend themselves against rioters? This is the type of logic that only an anti-gunner progressive could espouse and is the same type of sentiment that drove leftists to rail against Kyle Rittenhouse.

At the core of this opposition is the progressive belief that the state should be the ultimate protector of the people, which is one of several reasons why they oppose private gun ownership and the right of the people to assemble – with guns.

We have seen time and time again that when a natural or man-made disaster occurs, bad actors come out of the woodwork to take advantage of the situation. There have been countless stories of criminals looting and burglarizing homes while residents are dealing with a disaster. The notion that there should not be people who are willing to step up to stop this is not only absurd, it is dangerous.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with volunteers, armed or otherwise, doing what it takes to protect a community. Unfortunately, anti-gunners would rather that people remain vulnerable than be able to actually defend themselves.