Gun rights issues have been in the news lately in Washington and in Wyoming.
In Seattle, a judge recently ruled that the previous “progressive” mayor's ban on gun carry on city facilities “where children may be present” was a violation of state preemption laws. As usual, the “progressives” framed their argument in terms of “protecting the innocent”. As always, their real aim was to gain more control over the peasants, for the peasants own good.
In Wyoming, the Legislature advanced a bill that would allow citizens of Wyoming to carry arms without a state permit. Their permit system requires the supplicant to provide proof of firearms familiarity training/experience and pay a fee. A reasonable system that is much like the process used here in Montana. If signed into law, this measure would exclude the federally banned categories of habitual druggies or alcoholic-types , adjudicated mentally ill, and felons from being able to carry concealed.
As usual, in both of these recent cases the gun “control” faction cites studies that“show” that carrying guns make you more likely to be shot. A current popular one is from University of Pennsylvania that shows that those in the Philadelphia study group, 677 shooting incidents, were 4.5 times as likely to be shot when the subject was carrying a gun.
Since the lions share of those carrying in the study were criminals, then of course they were more likely to be shot as they were actively engaged in “looking for trouble” as part of their occupation. High crime in an area, greater chance of being shot. As always, gang and drug related shootings are not broken out from defensive shootings. As always, the subtle message is that only the State can protect the peasant.
In other happy news, a Russian blog reported on the case of a fed up retiree who tired of thieves stealing his crops. So he constructed three land mines in his garage. The next thief tripped a mine and suffered bodily harm. When Mr. Skopintsev was tried, he was found guilty of making the landmines, not of harming the wealth-redistributor, and given 2.5 year suspended sentence.
If only more of this kind of legal reasoning was used in the USA! Less focus on keeping the peasants unarmed so that criminals' rights to redistribute wealth, indulge their sexual drive upon unwilling partners, and intimidate innocents are not “infringed”.
The Second Amendment codifies our right to keep and bear arms as a natural right, not one granted according to conditions set by the State. Requiring permits to carry arms in our states is counter to our natural right.
But, we do have to act responsibly in the exercise of our natural rights. Plus, allowing universal carry does remove one tool from the boxes of police. Being able to arrest someone for carrying a concealed weapon. With universal carry, police must give the benefit of the doubt to someone found to be carrying and run the person's name through the system to see if they have a history of using their weapon for criminal purposes.
Some argued against the Montana “castle law” which was passed last year by the common contention that allowing citizens to draw down on assailants would result in bloodbaths as people would magically become homicidal if they were not required to retreat from threats. I'm disabled, so my attempts to retreat would be nearly useless. Squishy Liberals and politicians prefer that peasants call for the police to save them. "When seconds count, the police are [usually] only minutes away."
“Progressives” do support the proposition that a woman, lying dead and
bleeding from her rapist's assault is somehow more noble that the same woman explaining to the police how her would be assailant got that bullet hole.
Perhaps some would change their opinion if one of us took the time to present the facts in an effective way? Have you tried to reason with an antigunner? How did it go?
Many studies through the years have shown that criminals' greatest fear is picking an armed victim. In South Africa, it has been found that those who used a firearm increased their chance of survival by 31 times, and 97% of women who were armed successfully resisted a rape attempt (US study). Sure, if you haven't thought it out ahead of crisis time, you could be disarmed by your assailant. But we are preppers, so we will be mentally and physically prepared.
What do you think? Should universal carry be the rule. Or should there be reasonable" restrictions on Second Amendment rights such as training requirements (that give the State a potential confiscation list) and gun free zones?
Links to help you communicate with anti self-defense people:
The arguments made by MT Shooting Sports Association for the MT armed defense bill which became law last year. Good points to keep in mind when MT law enforcement executives militated against we peasants being able to defend ourselves.
Brief article on the real implications of "gun free zones"
Editorial which asks, "is self defense murder?"
Poignant letter from the head of Jews For the Protection Of Firearm Ownership (JPFO) on the implications of allowing erosion of Constitutional principles
Short blog post on how to effectively debate
Good overview of the "gun free society" arguments' fallacies
The infamous gun webcam. Watch it, report when the gun does something evil
Dirty debate tricks used by anti gunners, and how to counter them