Title of Article: California Bans Open Carry of Handguns
Date of Article: 10/10/11
Source: Christopher Santarelli www.theblaze.com
Web Address: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/california-bans-open-carry-of-handguns/
Summary of Article:
A new California bill signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, and designed to take effect in January prohibits citizens from openly carrying handguns in public, despite heavy opposition from gun advocates and most Republican lawmakers. The article presents the facts and lets the reader decide whether the ban is the most intelligent action, and whether or not the ban is unconstitutional. The NRA is filing a lawsuit against the bill.
Your Thoughts:
The Second Amendment States: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This amendment is pretty straight-forward. THere is some controversy over the “militia” part- however, it’s mostly a non-issue because in the time that the amendment was written, there was no national defense- the people made up the militia and were called to arms when needed. They were relied upon for defense, because the people *had* arms.
This article states that this law ‘makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a fine of $1,000.’
Since when is it a misdemeanor to have the right to defend yourself? Not the right to defend yourself even, but the right of the option to defend yourself?
Self-defense should not be an option!
It should be a right! That is what the Founders had in mind when they penned the second amendment. Self-defense is no longer an option when you’re lying on the ground unable to breathe and bleeding your life out because a low prohibited you from carrying a gun on your person or even in your car.
Even though citizens can still carry concealed with a permit, this permit is very difficult to get, and requires time, money and energy, and this deters many citizens from expending that energy in order to have the “right” to defend themselves. Since when do I pay for a right?
And the funny thing is, the anti-gun advocates all make the same argument. “Prevent guns from reaching the people, prevent them from reaching the criminals, prevent crime.”
While there is a chance if someone breaks into your house and there is a gun in your house, they could possibly find it and use it against you, however, this is extremely unlikely: First of all, the criminal would have to find the gun. If he wasn’t looking for a gun, this eliminates this possibility to mere chance. If he was looking for a gun, and would have reason to believe that there was one in your house, he would probably start in a secure location, as most people keep their guns in their bedroom, in a safe or in a closet. (At least if you had an ounce of sense, you would). Secondly, he would have to count on the fact that you wouldn’t be home at the time, because the chances of him breaking into your house and creeping into your bedroom and rummaging under your bed, through your closet or, God forbid, try and open your safe, and you NOT knowing it, (unless you weren’t home) are extremely slim.
Thirdly, if he knew you had a gun, and it was someplace that you could access it, this would deter him from robbing your home because chances are, you will reach that gun before he does, and if you are savvy enough to put a gun in your house, you probably have a basic idea of what to do with it. Psychologically, a home/town that is gun-friendly is the last place to be “crime friendly”.
Also, even if they do find access to guns, they probably won’t risk using them against other people with guns. They will use them in a place where they know they have a better chance of getting away with it- in a place where guns are looked down upon, or gun ownership is low. This gives them a better chance of getting away with their crime.
This law also takes some things as circumstantial “evidence” that a gun law needs to be enacted. Anthony Portantino, who designed the bill, said that it is an opportunity to prevent tragedy before it happens.
“It’s not if somebody is going to be shot, it’s when somebody is going to be shot.”
Wait... you mean... nobody has been shot by a citizen who was carrying a firearm because it was his right? No upright citizen exercising the second amendment so far has suddenly went berserk and started shooting and killing people? You didn’t mention that.
There is “concern about the proliferation of guns in public and the tense situations that arise when someone sees another person carrying a firearm in public.”
Hm. “Tense Situations” Didn’t here “massacre” anywhere in there. So all you are basing this law, this infringement on the rights of the people on, is merely “tense situations that arise?”
Well, of course I’m going to be on edge if I see someone carrying a gun! But rather than make me afraid of them, it would remind me to be more alert. What reason would that person have to carry a gun? And if he is just exercising his right, great. If a “tense situation” does arise, I would be thankful for that person who was carrying a gun if cops weren’t around. Needless to say, The quote also implies that “tense situations” arise from people getting nervous when they see someone carrying a gun. Form the people who see the gun. Not from those carrying the gun. Obviously they have nothing to worry about. So if the people who get nervous because they seethe gun, maybe there is something wrong with them, as no tense situations have been initiated by the person carrying the gun.
Personally, I support the right to bear arms in public. Most people never intend to use it. If they are carrying, then chances are they feel comfortable enough with their gun so that if a situation does arise, they will know what to do. I would support a bill that requires citizens to take a basic firearms training before they can carry, but that is as far as I would go.
And on top of it being difficult to get a Concealed Carry in California, this law is chiseling away at the rights of the people.
Importance of Article:
This article shows how badly this country needs help. The people have been drugged with complacency and political correctness, and have allowed their convictions and morals to be twisted into something most of us don’t recognize. When you dig to the heart of the matter, it is more control to the government, and less power to the citizens. What will happen when we can’t defend ourselves? Once they take away the small rights that you are willing to relinquish, what is to stop them from taking away bigger rights? How long before that prohibit the citizen ownership of firearms altogether? Is your life worth it?
Well, people of California, sadly, you have elected yourself into this position. The good news is, gun advocates of California, if you are fed up with your officials, there is plenty of room in Idaho County, Idaho, for you, where the Idaho County Sheriff’s department is the first in the nation to give classes to citizens on tactical handgun defense. I went to a class in Nevada and there were about 800 people there. Every. Single. One of them. Was carrying a firearm on their person. Most of them handguns on their belt. Myself included. I was not at all uncomfortable. In fact, I felt like the safest person in the world. (I probably was.)
When people are always afraid of what they don’t know. If they have a secure knowledge in a subject (such as how to operate a firearm safely and accurately) they will be much more comfortable and not be worried about “tense situations”.
~KnightRanger
No comments:
Post a Comment