The second amendment to the constitution was placed there by the founding fathers for good reason. They had just overthrown an unjust government and wanted to make sure that if the occasion ever arose again, the populace could, again, overthrow an oppressive government.
In this day and age it becomes increasingly unlikely that even a “well armed militia” could overthrow the HUGE government we now live under even if it did become oppressive. But that being the case, there is no reason to avoid the meaning of the second amendment. It was clearly not placed there to protect “sportsmen” or to protect the ability to hunt for food. No, it was meant to give citizens the ability to confront other citizens on an even footing. The weak could not be oppressed by a well armed minority, government, local police organization or vigilante group.
The movement, since the 70s toward concealed carry permitting and open carry permitting has been in the right direction. Some states are doing it as the Constitution meant it to be done. Vermont and Arizona are good examples. California was without permits until the Supreme Court told them they had to have a permitting process. They now do have a process, though it is actually a sham as only the well connected can get a permit in that state. The interesting thing is that, in California, open carry is permitted without any permit as long as the weapon is unloaded. But, you can carry the magazine in your pocket!!! Texas has “concealed carry” with a permit and they are working on “open carry” with a permit so they are moving in the right direction.
But why is it important…other than that the Constitution says we have that right?…. In every state that has enacted “concealed carry” permitting crime rates have gone down. They have gone down because the potential criminal is concerned that he might have resistance and not even know from which direction that resistance might come. Open carry has its problems. I am not sure I would want to be carrying in the open even if it was permitted. The first target of a criminal, on entry into an area, would be take out those with exposed weapons! I would prefer the criminal would not know I was behind him with a weapon.
Some states don’t allow carrying in hospitals, banks, government buildings, drinking establishments and churches. Some of this, such as drinking establishments makes a small amount of sense, but some states don’t restrict it except to say the person carrying should not be drinking which makes a LOT of sense. However, why would a permit carrier who had to go through an FBI background check to get the permit be restricted from carrying into a bank where he might be able to stop a hostage situation from developing. A restriction that the bank robber has no compunction in ignoring. The robber in this case knows that he will not meet any resistance as no one but him/her will have a weapon!! Why is there a restriction against carrying a gun into a church, where an Islamic extremist might launch an attack? The usual answer I get to that one is, “Why would you want a gun in church?” That is a very uninformed question and the answer is a simple, “Why not?”. It is our right to carry.
The permit method of allowing the carrying of weapons is not, in my opinion, constitutional, but does carry with it a full FBI background check which should quench some of the critics. However, what would you think if the government said you free speech was conditioned upon a permit obtained only after having taken a four year course in English and paying a $100 a year fee for the permit? Or your right to freedom of religion or from religion was predicated on your having obtained a permit that required a study course of all the worlds major religions and a “church tax” or $5 to be paid every time you entered a church, synagogue, or mosque. (For the non believers, the fee would be an equal distribution of a tax equal to all the church taxes received from the previous year, distributed to all the atheists. Even taxing, fair and balanced.) Freedom of association would then mean every person on Facebook would then have to pay $1 for every “friend” that they accumulated. So why is the second amendment different? Why is there a permit required to exercise that Constitutional right?
Actually, though the critics will say otherwise, carrying of weapons either open or concealed reduces violence. Back in the old west when two men, carrying openly on their hip, met on the side-walk, they tipped their hats to one another and were polite. To do otherwise might cause one or the other to draw and shoot. It was a gentler time!!! That of course is an exaggeration. But, when the law places a heavier burden on one who is carrying, that person is more aware of his responsibilities. If you are carrying and know that the law frowns on your exposure of your weapon, you tend to be very concious of that responsibility to keep it out of sight and your need to be really sure that it is justified before pulling it out. This causes you to quell your anger and think in a very controlled manner about what you may be thinking of doing. Most states make a big issue out of “brandishing” a weapon and assess large penalties on those that pull a weapon for the purpose of “scaring” someone. I know that if I have a weapon in my car, I am a much better driver and less aggressive. When I carry I feel secure and in feeling secure I feel less need to be aggressive. Aggressive behaviour, at least in males in most species, is intended to scare away a rival when a threat is perceived. When you are carrying you feel less threatened so there is less need to be aggressive.
I saw a statement recently that referred to the open carrying of weapons as a levelling of the playing field. The 90 pound grandmother is equal to the 230 pound “gorilla” in the dark alley. In that confrontation both are on level ground when it comes to force and any exchange must be negotiated and the more convincing argument is the winner because force is no longer a factor. Only reason can be used when force is neutralised. The upholding of second amendment rights will lead us toward a more reasoned society.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment