The liberals, we expect to be anti-gun. They want to grow government so they eliminate liberty's safeguards one by one and try to replace you with officials or some policy.
And when you complain and use your first amendment rights of redress of grievances, they try and shut you up.
But, Golly, Batman, what do you do when conservatives start thinking like liberals right after they've been elected and seated?
Now Peter King (R) New York is trying to make it a crime to be armed within a thousand feet of any government officials. This after it was a private citizen or two who brought the Tucson shooter down! What do they have in the water that makes them overlook the obvious?
Let me explain something to the incoming Congress: gun control takes guns from people who are the law on scene in the absence of law enforcement. All governance rises up from the electorate, including the authority we grant law enforcement and public servants; including legislation, affirmative defenses to tort and crime filings, and the Vote. The legal authority gun owners summon in our own personal armed self-defense is well established in public policy, public interest, tort law, criminal law, a few other codified and substantive law and various doctrines, not to forget citizen arrest.
Any citizen can stop a crime in progress, any citizen can bring up to lethal force when facing grave danger.
What you saw in the Tucson incident in taking down Whatsisname was the sovereign people acting on their sovereign authority to act in stopping a crime in progress. Being free to use up to lethal force for that incident didn't mean they had to, but they could have if they wanted. An Ed Schultz interview with Joe Zamudio [internet search term Ed Schultz, Joe Zamudio for the video] exemplified something gun owners never get credit for from the anti-gun crowd and that is good judgment under pressure. We don't even get credit from republican congressman, do we?
Is it the good samaritans who will be charged with battery of Whatsisnamne? No.
Will they be charged with excessive force? No. How about false imprisonment? No.
Will those three receive a letter of criminal complaint for "playing cop" or impersonating an officer? No.
Why not? Because each of them had then and they have now the authority to act in the absence of law enforcement to stop a crime in progress. What you saw in action was the doctrine of coming to the aid of another, AKA standing in the shoes of the victim. Nobody needed permission from anybody to stop Whatsizname. They already had the authority. Citizens have that authority at this very hour nationwide. It is one of the best kept secrets of gun control, and gun control gets people killed.
Concealed carry or open carry in places such as Arizona is much more than the right to carry a gun; it is a spirit of independence which is cultivated by the adult in their continuing self-interest to be free to make the kinds of decision only he and family must live with. Why? How? Because officials never have to live with the consequences of their silliness. Citizens have to live with their choices; might as well insist on being free to make those choices. Independence.
Liberty is a realization that, in all things, there is no one else who will be responsible for you but you, no matter what officials promise you, just as there was no one else at the moment Whatsizname struck. (Why there wasn't someone detailed to be there is something you'll have to look into, but generally, thugs prefer to strike when they think the coast is clear, as in gun control.) The armed citizen means that the coast is never clear for thugs to strike. Too many armed citizens likely is my guess.
The ubiquitous armed citizen means that a community itself refuses to be a victim, and realizes that it can trust its armed citizens who are everywhere better than it could ever trust a gun control policy which is never around when you need it. Translation: murder is already illegal.
Gun owners like to improve their skills, develop their judgment and improve their practice and understanding of the law. They know not to react in emotion, but to respond in purpose. Joe Zamudio who elected to grapple with Whatsisname rather than draw his gun – which he reports he had already reached for and instantly elected to keep holstered – reflects the kind of self-restraint and judgment that give meaning to what Independence is all about. This applies to family as much as it does education, privacy, marriage, net neutrality, and a hundred other values that safeguard our country. Small wonder the kind of man or woman who knows he/she will always be on their own no matter what officials promise is the type to own and carry a handgun.
It's time the left in America be recognized as being against independence. How so? Independence does not need officials dictating to us their second best solutions when we already have in place the very best safeguards in self-governance: our sovereign authority and living with our own choices. AKA self-rule. Liberals take the self out of self-rule and replace it with second best programs.
Gun control was the very first abuse of due process in this country, dear Members of Congress. It paved the way for all of today's abuses of the law we now experience as one nation. It's time to appreciate from this experience that the armed citizen stops more than crime than all the gun laws in history; the armed citizen impeaches other boondoggles. When you begin to stop crime, you begin to get a handle on all the other boondoggles by finding that they are just as unnecessary and counter intuitive as gun control is.
Be sure to register for my Safer Streets Newsletter and Commentary. It's free, it's frequent, and it has my own selection of America's top liberty writers to join me.