Blogalwarning

The truth that was swept under the rug

Armed Society Is Polite Society

Todd Wright from MIAMI MSNBC , is (based on his article) an anti-gun reporter. His article is about new rules that “will allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring their guns to parks, ball fields, beaches, camping grounds and a host of other publicly-owned areas where children frolic” in Palm Beach County. Interestingly enough – this is how he opens his article: “residents might want to think twice about starting an argument with another parent”. Mr. Right ignores the fact that holders of Concealed Weapon Permits are hardly ever involved in gun crimes, but he does acknowledge that an armed society is a polite society and for that he is praised! To read the article follow this link:http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/politics/Palm-Beach-County-Parks-Kids-Fun-and-Guns-Welcome-112333749.html

Advertisements

December 25, 2010 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , | 2 Comments

Privacy of Conceal Carry Permit Holders in Oregon

By Bigblock57, Blogarwarning blog.

The question if identities of Conceal Carry Permit holders should be a public record or kept from public eyes’ is now being dealt with by the Oregon legislature. Here is my response to an article on the subject in the Portland edition of Examiner.com.  (Edited since initial posting).

To begin with, all licensing of firearms or the permission to carry them in a certain way, and the background check now required to purchase them are infringements on the basic constitutional right to bear arms. It is all part of the grand plan of left-leaning organizations and politicians to take guns away from citizens. First, a gun owner shows up on a state list of people who purchased a gun. Then the fact that a person has a permit to carry concealed weapon is a public record which gives anti-gun activists access to his/her name and address. At the right time, these activists will begin to personally harass permit holders (which is exactly why their identity needs to be kept from the public). In the end owning a gun will involve so much hassle and controversy that many people will want to have nothing to do with that. In case of a decision to completely ban guns, the list compiled by the state from background checks will automatically become a confiscation list. Look at this childish excuse why identity of permit holders needs to be public: “people deserve the right to know who is packing a gun”; Really? what makes them deserve that? Is there a hint here that if someone “packs” a gun he/she is someone bad? dangerous? The funny thing is that the guns in the hands of really dangerous people (i.e criminals) are not on any state list, and are being carried concealed with no permit. How come anti-gunners are never concerned about the inability of law enforcement to deal with those? Instead they are obsessed with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who (unnecessarily and against their constitutional rights) went through a background check before they could purchase their weapon, or granted concealed carry permit. Rights aside, society should have the proper ratio bewteen guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and guns in the hands of criminals. This necessity is confirmed when comparing crime trends and rates in states and cities that make it easy to own and carry guns vs. states and cities that make it hard. Anything that makes it harder or less convenient to own and carry a weapon, is unconstitutional and bad for public safety. Privacy of Conceal Carry Permit holders is important for both.

March 13, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why bear arms? and where does it go?

(Excerps from “Shooting Blind”,  by William R. Tonso | November 1995 Print Edition, Reasononline.

…But the most important reason American civilians should have access to these guns has nothing to do with recreation or even with defense against criminals. It has to do with the main purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, an aspect of the “assault weapon” story that the national press has almost completely ignored. 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.” 

…the meaning of the Second Amendment is very clear to the vast majority of scholars who have examined the paper trail left by the Founders. James Madison’s friend Tench Coxe expressed their concerns succinctly in 1789: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

The Founders also made it clear that the “militia” consisted of the whole armed people. The Federalist Papers and other writings indicate that they feared large professional military forces and select militias (like the National Guard). Citizens and their privately owned guns were part of the system of checks and balances that the Founders felt was necessary to keep government from drift ing into tyranny. Authors of the 50 law review articles that support this interpretation include such prominent, liberal, non gun-owning scholars as Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, Akhil R. Amar of Yale, and William Van Alstyne of Duke.

According to Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code, the National Guard is still only the orga nized part of a militia that consists of practically all able-bodied males and some females between the ages of 17 and 45 who are citizens of the United States or have declared an intention to become citizens. The only 20th-century Supreme Court ruling touching on the Second Amendment ( U.S. v. Miller, 1939) acknowledged that militiamen called to service “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time “ [emphasis added].

…American citizens have traditionally had access to rifles and pistols with more power and magazine capacity than those issued to common soldiers. In keeping with the traditional American view of the militia, the Army’s Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship has long sold sur plus pistols, rifles, and carbines, including semi-automatics, to the public at bargain-basement prices. No one claims that Americans have caused problems with these surplus military small arms. Yet since common soldiers started carrying automatic or burst-fire rifles, American citizens have no longer had access to up-to-date military small arms, and federal law now even restricts their access to semi-automatic variations of these guns. So not only do we have the large professional military and select militia that the Founders feared, but there is a movement afoot to get militarily effective small arms out of civilian hands.

February 28, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why carry a gun?

Recently, I was reading a short article on why that author carried a gun.  In my opinion it was thought provoking, so I thought I would post it here for your comments.  It is written by a gentleman named Marko Kloos and was originally entitled “Why the Gun IS Civilization”.

“Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:  reason and force.  If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force.  Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.  Reason or Force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.  Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as that might sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.  You have to use reason to try and persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.  The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.  The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.  These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job.  That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed, either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of the mugger’s potential marks are armed.  People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society.  A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

There’s an argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would “only” result in injury.  This argument is fallacious in several ways.  Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.  People who think that fists, bats, sticks and stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst.  The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker.  If both are armed, the field is level.  The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of a octogenarian  as it is in the hands of a weight-lifter.  It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it weren’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.  The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.  I don’t carry it because I am afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.  It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only those who would do so by force.  It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.”

February 28, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment