"Gun laws have some up in arms," reads the gainsvilletimes.com headline:
Potential changes to the state’s gun laws have many wondering what would happen locally if the legislature votes to allow concealed weapons into more public places.
I'm going to wander into Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner Ed Stone's turf today and offer some responses to some of the fears, because they really are more universal than local arguments.
We're warned that men and women with gun carry permits will be able to do so in churches and on college campuses. Or to have their weapons in non-secured airport areas, or on public transit. Or in restaurants and establishments that serve adult beverages.
The primary arguments against "allowing" this?
They will face stiff opposition from those who argue that tinkering with gun laws could lead to more violence.
and
Critics, meanwhile, said they worry it could give rise to vigilante justice and jeopardize the public’s safety.
A pastor worries:
After a while, everybody toting guns around will develop a ‘Wild West’ mentality.
A police chief had this to offer on expanded establishment carry:
“You mix alcohol with firearms and bad things happen”...
See, the "Only Ones" never have access to guns and alcohol at the same time, like in their homes...
The argument seems to boil down to if peaceable armed citizens cross certain property lines, our behavior changes. We degenerate into hot-tempered, remorseless, out-of-control, binge-drinking frat boys and drunken cowboys, ready to blast for any reason--or for no reason at all. Oh, and avenging vigilantes...that's what the antis are calling self-defense these days, isn't it?
Of course, if we're really such immoral and irrational slavering-in-our-blood-lust powder kegs, we have no business being armed anywhere. If we can't be trusted with a gun, what are we doing being trusted without a custodian?
And only the custodian can be trusted.
That's really what it's all about, you know...
Comments
if it would require a more stringent background check then it should be allowed...still there are some concerns on first time owners
The real fear these people have is that we'll turn violent against them when they cross the line against tyranny.
Robert, you seem to be a bit confused...
Criminals do not submit to background checks. Considerable history has proven that ordinary people carry guns, millions of them, without indulging in criminal behavior. The states of Vermont and Alaska require NO background checks of any kind to carry a gun, either openly or concealed. They do not have blood running down the streets... In Wyoming, we carry openly everywhere except the post office. Not much crime here at all. I've carried a gun for years, and have never had the urge to draw on someone who cut me off in traffic.
The only obvious rational conclusion is that these background checks, "licenses" and restricted areas are not useful in preventing crime, but the creation of disarmed victim zones increases the risk to everyone EXCEPT the criminals!
The most dangerous responsibility in the world is having the right to carry a loaded firearm either openly or concealed. People need to understand that responsibility when they decide to become one of those people who will be carrying for wahtever personal reasons. I have owned guns all my life since my military days and only on two occasions did I feel the need to take a gun out of my house for reasons other than target shooting. Neither time did I use it and it was the deterrent I hoped for. The gun's presence was more than enough to defuse each situation at the time since the cops were very slow to respond. Picking up a gun in a votile situation is not like picking up the TV remote control. If we have a problem in this country it is that regular people do not understand the seriousness of gun ownership. You cannot take back the results once a gun has been fired. Does that mean no guns? No, it menas ramp up your understanding of the responsibility when you buy a gun.
Robert: "still there are some concerns on first time owners"
BS. Odd as it may seem to folks who know me now, I haven't always been a gun owner. I purchased my first gun, a 1911 .45ACP, in the early '90s. And by that time, I had spent 11 years in the USAF where I was qualified on the .38 Special revolver and rated marksman with the M-16 assault rifle, and I had an unblemished safety record with both. So tell me exactly what concerns you would have had about my being a first time owner.
And background checks? I live in New Hampshire. You only need a license for concealed carry, and a background check isn't required. And yet, somehow we manage to have a low crime rate (and a large percentage of what we do have is committed by residents of that gun control paradise, Massachusetts).
Robert: "The most dangerous responsibility in the world is having the right to carry a loaded firearm either openly or concealed."
Do you operate one of those deadly weapons used to kill more than 45,000 people per year? Did you undergo a background check, in order to be allowed to use them?
You know, automobiles.
If so, do you top off your tank with the energy equivalent of several sticks of dynamite? Or do you run it on fumes, and increase the risk of a fuel-air explosion?
You want everyone to get special permissions and background checks to carry a gun, but we trust 16 y/os with far deadlier implements. Sure, you have to use a gun responsibly; but responsibility isn't issued by the state.
I DO carry every day. Before NH, I experienced 3 mugging attempts which failed because I was armed. Crime is almost a non-issue here, but we do have bears. I doubt the muggers or bears had background checks before they could become predators. I don't see why we need checks to be def
Robert said," If we have a problem in this country it is that regular people do not understand the seriousness of gun ownership"
Horse hockey, Robert has a superiority complex. He obviously believes he is more special that regular people. Well, guess what Robert. That is the very same attitude that gun banners have, the very same attitude that all rights deniers have. The very same attitude all tyrants have.
Oh, thank you so much for explaining to me how inferior I, a regular person, am.
One of those people who lives to crunch boring numbers (are you listening, Mr. Lott?) should do a study of how many generally acceptable relaxations of gun prohibitions (like shall-issue, guns in restaurants, etc.) were fought tooth and nail by local and state law enforcement groups, compared with how many were supported by their local LEO groups. It would be a good tool to have to slap down idiots like the police chief above.
There are some citizens who should NOT be allowed to have guns. Violent felons and persons judged to be mentally incompetent, for instance. For other citizens, it may, in fact, be trial and error that determines who is not personally reponsible enough to exercise the right to bear arms. We've seen that the cost of that trial and error can be high, but that may be a required price of freedom for citizens of a free nation. Those in government, however, have NO legitimate authority to increase that cost by depriving responsible American citizens of their right to defend their own lives and the lives of others, regardless of location. We are either responsible, or we are not. We are either free, or we are not. We are either sovereign American citizens, or we are not. I say that we are.
While I agree with some that there should be training or some type of screening process I disagree that simply going to Bars or Restaurants or similar creates killers out of normally law abiding citizens. Not all of us like to be drunk all the time, and in my opinion drunks will rarely be able to afford much more than the drink anyhow.
Only felons, child abusers, domestic violence initiators, and mentally defective individuals should have to be passed over regarding Second Amendment rights. The problem here is that many states do not allow much of this information to be used...
Mandatory training is my suggestion to many- why not, people must take a DL test to get their DL and be able to drive right? Why not require something similar for firearms purchases?
Don't you people understand the meaning of the words, "shall not be infringed." Once you open the door to infringments of any kind, eventually they will apply to you. Stand tall and demand that the clear meaning of the second amendment be honored. Let them keep prohibiting this group and that group, in due time your group will be targeted. Deadeye
Jesse - Am I to take your title of Cochise County Libertarian Examiner literally. Your post may put you in the "examiner" category, but it most certainly displays your lack of libertarianism in practice. Maybe you are the "only one" that truly understands what liberty means.
Jesse (Chochise County Examiner) -"Why not requre something similar for firearms' purchase?"
Let's review the concept of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed":
1] Rights predate government. 2] Rights, akin to breathing, require neither acceptance nor permission to exist. 3] Rights exist, and are often most evident, while being violated.
Jesse, in your confusion you seem to believe the words "Privilege" and and "Right" are interchangeable. A Priviledge can be extended and/or withdrawn. Rights can never be withdrawn, unless the Creator himself determines to do so. Rights can be usurped, Rights can be stolen, Rights can be denied, Rights can be violated. But Rights cannot cease to exist.
Additionally, since the definitions of "unalienable" and "infringed" are the same today as they were in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" do you fail to grasp?
Geee.... The Constitution says I have an unfettered "right" not privilege, to carry and possess weapons and yet, their are those who will not concede that these rights exist.
I wonder, what other rights do they think don't exist or should be modified to suit their "understanding" of the intents of those basic English words, which represent concepts adopted and supported over hundreds of years?
When they reject those principles and concepts, they reject the combined knowledge and experience of the ages in favor of the dark ages and previous governmental forms which we rejected. They, want to burn the books and start over relearning those expensive lessons, needlessly. This should tell you everything you could want to know of their mind set.
I will not be ruled by them nor allow my children to be rule by them. I will go to war to make sure this does not happen. I didn't start the war. I just wanted to be left alone. They won't stop and I now see no way out. It is not my choice
Jesse - Cochise County Libertarian Examiner,
I would suggest you go back and read or perhaps re-read "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" by Murray N. Rothbard. The main thesis of modern Libertarianism seems to have escaped you. That is, that most of what the government seeks to get involved in is none of the government's business. Government does most everything it touches badly and at great expense. In the words of President Ford, "I doubt the government could make beer for less that $50.00 per six pack." Therefore, we should have government do ONLY those things that NEED to be done and cannot be done any other way. Read the book, it's all in there.
Defcon1,
Convicted felons, mental incompetants, and children have abreviated subsets of the rights of a full citizen. Infants are citizens yet cannot vote. In the case of convicted felons, it's been said here before but bears repeating. If a felon is too dangerous to posess a firearm, they are too dangerous not to be incarcerated. I don't care what part of their "debt to society" they have paid. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see that having most of our violent criminals roaming the streets on some sort of honor system isn't working. It's going to be a real problem to get our politicians and parole boards straight on that one.
I see state and local governments as wanting it both ways.
The elected representatives are in the business of selling laws after all. They want to clam that because of one of their laws, areas like schools or churches are safe and "gun free".
In other areas, the police are not under the obligation to protect any individual citizen, and citizens must protect themselves. In these gun free areas the government agency has assumed absolute liability along with absolute power. The government agency is absolutely responsible for my safety from harm.
I was about to say the government agency was responsible for my safety from criminal acts, but that implies that non-human predators in national parks are also "criminal".
Or do the politicians want it both ways, to leave me defenseless while they are held not responsible for my safety? I don't think we should let them have it both ways.
Tack
Tack--They want it both ways. They want you disarmed and are absolutely NOT responsible for your safety. Read "Dial 911 and Die" by attorney Richard Stevens--he examines all state laws on this and cites precedents that show police have no duty--including attendant liability should they fail--to protect you.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!