RSS
Home
You bet it's personal!
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Do those who carry a gun for self defense belong here? (AP Photo/Wade Payne)
Agree to disagree. Live and let live, right? This is the attitude of most people in Atlanta today about controversial topics. We all can disagree and yet still get along.
Does this philosophy hold up when applied to the "gun control" debate? I think not.
It does from my side of the argument. I carry a gun every day. I enjoy shooting guns, and I am competent at doing so. I also view my gun as a necessary tool that might save my life or the life of somebody close to me in an emergency situation.
At the same time, I realize most people do not carry a gun on a daily basis. I am ok with that, and I do not seek to force any of them to start carrying a gun. Let's call my position the "pro-choice" position.
Now let us examine the same issue from the other side.
Whenever a debate arises in the legislature over whether to repeal a ban on carrying in a certain location, there are those who support the change and those who oppose it. Those who oppose the change obviously "disagree," but is this opposition related to the "agree to disagree" state of mind discussed in the first paragraph, or to a far more sinister disposition?
As stated, I think people should be free not to carry a firearm anytime they believe they do not desire to do so. I have no desire to force my viewpoint upon others. On the other hand, those who oppose repealing a gun ban in churches think that I should be put into jail or prison for carrying my firearm in church. Do you see the difference in attitude? I am "pro-choice," while they believe I should be forced into a concrete box, such as that pictured above.
In Georgia, carrying a firearm in the wrong location could mean, in some cases, 20 years in prison and a $15,000 fine, which is the punishment for having a firearm in the parking lot at Hartsfield (the Atlanta airport), followed by the loss of your right to bear arms and to vote, for life. See O.C.G.A. 16-12-127. In other cases, it could mean as little as a year in jail and the loss of your right to bear arms for three years after your release. See, e.g., O.C.G.A. 16-11-127. Do you think your boss will hold your job for you for a year? Will twenty years mean that you miss your children growing up?
So, there you have it. I say live and let live. They, however, believe in forcing me to do what it is that they want. Should I fail to do things the way they want, then they vote for armed men to throw me into prison for two decades should I choose to have the means of self defense available in a location of which they disapprove. Do you see any differences in philosophy? One involves liberty and choice, while the other involves force and prison. While they may cloak their viewpoints with euphemisms like "reasonable" and "sane policy," the end result of their agenda is that I go to prison for their "reasonable" and "sane" beliefs that I do not share.
Some might say I am taking this kind of personally. My answer would be, yes, because it is personal. My rights and my freedom from jail and prison are very personal to me. My message to you is - hands off!
Have a great Fourth of July celebration!
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Armed customer stops robbery
- Austin: The human side of self-defense
- Boston: More Federal and State Government tyranny on the way
- Charlotte: Dangers of gun registration: 'The Belgian Corporal'
- Cleveland: Let freedom ring.... ALL freedoms
- DC: Under Obamacare, where will Canadians go for medical services?
- Denver: What happens to you when you buy a gun?
- Los Angeles: SoCal Churches go concealed carry.
- Minneapolis: Dirty Deeds in Virginia
- National: Independence requires the will and means to preserve it
- Seattle: Lautenberg’s legislation cloak’s anti-gun senator’s true intention
- St. Louis: Brady Campaign observes Independence Day by lobbying against liberty
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
