Big Dogs Weblog

Strap ‘Em On

by Blake on Jul 28, 2009 at 09:21 Political

The right to keep and bear arms.
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.

Seems very simple, doesn’t it? Two sentences, all to the point, no extra words to confuse the meaning- and yet so many people choose to willfully ignore the plain meaning in this simple and basic right that we as Americans are privileged to have.

Simply put, we, as citizens of the United States, have the right to own firearms, both to protect our families and our country. Oh, I know that nowadays if you volunteer to join our armed forces, you are issued government- approved and tested firearms, if for no other reason that ammunition is then interchangeable in a combat situation. That is logical.

But the other part of this right is about protection. True, we have the police, and when the police are on the scene, it is the right thing to allow the police to do their job. However, it is also true that, as good as the police try to be, they are still mainly a reactive force, meaning that in a majority of cases, the police cannot pre-emptively defuse a potential situation. They have to have an actual crime take place before they can do something.

By then, if it is a rape or murder, the damage has already been done. If it is a car jacking, the criminal has already fled with your $30,000 or more car- not a thing that enhances your day, not to mention there is a good possibility that you have been shot or abducted in the car jacking process.

This is why I have a CCL, (concealed carry license)- I carry when I leave home, because I would rather shoot than be shot, and these criminals need to know that there can be consequences for their behavior, and these consequences can be fatal. 

Well, my rights have become a little narrower with the defeat of the  CCL bill that would have allowed people such as myself to carry my firearm from state to state, within the laws of that state. 

Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, the legislation would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they “have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence” they “are entitled to do so.” It was considered one of the most far-reaching federal efforts ever proposed to expand gun-permitting laws.

“This carefully tailored amendment will ensure that a state’s border is not a limit to an individual’s fundamental right and will allow law-abiding individuals to travel without complication throughout the 48 states that already permit some form of conceal and carry,” Thune said during Wednesday’s sometimes contentious debate.

washingtonpost.com

In an extremely ironic twist, the opponents of this bill cited State’s Rights, a provision of the Constitution that they normally feel more comfortable ignoring, as if State’s Rights were the red- headed stepchild of the United States, as the reason they worked to defeat this bill.

In reality, it was more opposition to the Second Amendment than support of the Tenth that these Liberals were actually working towards. I can, however, see their flawed logic, but the true reality is that there should be uniformity among this part of the Second Amendment, so that people who do interstate commerce, such as truckers, jewelry salesmen, and others can have a consistent level of protection.

It is rather humorous that these Liberal Socialists want to federalize everything except when it suits their agenda to all of a sudden “discover” the Tenth Amendment.

In a rare instance of their trumpeting states’ rights, the liberal Democrats noted that 36 states have specific laws regarding these gun permits. Some bar conceal-carry permits for alcohol abusers and prohibit misdemeanor criminals from carrying weapons.

“The states already have laws. Under the Thune amendment, those laws could be ignored. So if the Thune amendment becomes law, people who are currently prohibited from carrying concealed guns in those 36 states are free to do so. It is absurd that we are considering this,” said Durbin, the majority whip.

washingtonpost.com

Actually, Dick Durbin has it wrong- the people who have been barred from getting licenses in their states would continue to be denied, but those people who have legitimate licenses would be able to have a continuity of legality within these states. This is a good thing. I believe that the people at Virginia Tech, or any other shooting in public,  might have been well served by a citizen who was lawfully carrying a firearm at the time. Perhaps not so many people would have died.

I live by the axiom, “It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.” You cannot  realistically ask a criminal to wait until you go buy a firearm in order to make the fight more equal. The criminal is counting on things being unequal, in his favor, so it really is up to you to alter the situation more in your favor. After all, it is your life, and that of your family’s that lies in the balance.

I urge everyone who feels the need, to buy their own firearm, and take lessons in correct handling of that specific weapon (and have anyone who might handle this weapon do the same), then, if you feel the need to get a CCL, do so. I have the suspicion that if everyone were allowed to carry a weapon, perhaps some of the less stupid criminals might not try to rob, rape, or murder so many people if they thought that perhaps they might not survive the attempt.

I know that when I leave my house, I make sure all my rights are with me. You should too.

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Tags: 10th amendment, 2nd amendment, firearms, nra, socialist agenda