In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
have gun will defend!
bmbuzlr
Member Posts: 667 ✭✭✭✭
Restricting Right to Carry is Unnatural, Unconstitutional and Unsafe
12-30-02
Self-preservation is not only a natural instinct; it is an inalienable right confirmed by the U.S. Constitution which is the only "permit" any law-abiding responsible American needs to carry a concealed weapon. Vermont is one state that recognizes this and does not require any license at all. Ohio, along with New Mexico, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia are still holding to the unconstitutional position that to "keep and bear arms" is limited to the confines of one's home despite the clear language of our nation's founding documents and their own state constitutions. Article 4 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States." Therefore the prohibition of carrying a concealed weapon imposed by Ohio law is a direct infringement of 2nd Amendment rights. Furthermore, it is a contradiction of Ohio's constitution, which in Article 1 Section 1 reads, "All men are, by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty..." In Article 1 Section 4 it specifies that, "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security." People are not so vulnerable in their homes as they are on the streets.
If criminals carry concealed weapons, so should law-abiding citizens. Why should terrorists and thugs have all the advantage? The people are entitled to at least a fighting chance. Proponents of gun control worry that allowing concealed carry will result in some kind of "wild west" scenario with continual gunplay in the streets. Statistics have shown just the opposite. Michigan recently reversed its ban on carrying guns and has seen no such problems. No law enforcement officer has ever been killed in the line of duty by a citizen with a concealed weapons permit. A CATO Institute study showed that states with "shall issue" laws have a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate. Bill Landes at the University of Chicago found that deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80 percent after states passed "right to carry" laws. Prof. John Lott's 1998 study "More Guns, Less Crime" also demonstrated that the most effective way to reduce crime is to issue concealed carry permits.
According to the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report, Maryland, which has a "discretionary" carry law and bans most handguns, has had the highest robbery rate in the nation for the fifth straight year, which is nearly twice the national average. The District of Columbia, which prohibits all handguns and requires all firearms to be registered, had a murder rate of 69 people per 100,000. Compare this to Indianapolis, located in a state that has very liberal gun laws (in the true sense of the word) including right to carry, which had a murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Do you suppose this "victim-rich environment" created by strict gun control laws in Washington DC and Maryland was one reason the two snipers choose that locale to launch their attacks though they had frequented other parts of the country?
Opposition to concealed carry is actually a very selfish and deadly notion. Just because some may have a squeamish aversion to firearms and may not be "comfortable" with the idea of guns in public places, does not justify denying the majority the right to protect their own lives. A Zogby poll indicated that 66 percent of Americans support RTC laws and a full 88 per cent would prefer to see retired police and military to serve as air marshals or deputies. Politicians are persuaded to claim "progress" by passing gun laws to appease their liberal constituents when they discover that it is far easier to control law-abiding citizens who are by nature compliant than to impede criminals. Government officials including police officers have guns for their protection. It is estimated that firearms are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year, which is three to five times the number of crimes committed with a gun. In 98 percent of those cases, the intended victim merely had to display the weapon. If you doubt that, just ask the criminal. Thirty-four percent of incarcerated felons said that they had been deterred by armed citizens. How many lives have been lost needlessly because of restrictive gun laws generated by emotional responses to tragedy?
Families and children are no safer because of the ban on carrying guns despite what proponents of gun control may feel. Strict gun control laws did not protect the thirteen-year old sniper victim shot in a Maryland schoolyard. The response to shootings such as occurred at LAX airport and the DC area should be to expand the presence of guns not limit them. Thomas Jefferson said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of armsSdisarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimesSSuch laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Armed citizens are not a menace, but are in fact guardians of the community. Patrick Henry observed, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Actually less than 1 percent of eligible citizens carry concealed arms, but it's enough to keep the criminal guessing. The police cannot be everywhere and technically are not legally responsible for your protection. That responsibility belongs to each individual as it should and as was intended by the 2nd Amendment.
By Chuck Busch
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith,1787.
"They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
If God didn't want us to eat animals, then he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
12-30-02
Self-preservation is not only a natural instinct; it is an inalienable right confirmed by the U.S. Constitution which is the only "permit" any law-abiding responsible American needs to carry a concealed weapon. Vermont is one state that recognizes this and does not require any license at all. Ohio, along with New Mexico, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia are still holding to the unconstitutional position that to "keep and bear arms" is limited to the confines of one's home despite the clear language of our nation's founding documents and their own state constitutions. Article 4 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States." Therefore the prohibition of carrying a concealed weapon imposed by Ohio law is a direct infringement of 2nd Amendment rights. Furthermore, it is a contradiction of Ohio's constitution, which in Article 1 Section 1 reads, "All men are, by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty..." In Article 1 Section 4 it specifies that, "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security." People are not so vulnerable in their homes as they are on the streets.
If criminals carry concealed weapons, so should law-abiding citizens. Why should terrorists and thugs have all the advantage? The people are entitled to at least a fighting chance. Proponents of gun control worry that allowing concealed carry will result in some kind of "wild west" scenario with continual gunplay in the streets. Statistics have shown just the opposite. Michigan recently reversed its ban on carrying guns and has seen no such problems. No law enforcement officer has ever been killed in the line of duty by a citizen with a concealed weapons permit. A CATO Institute study showed that states with "shall issue" laws have a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate. Bill Landes at the University of Chicago found that deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80 percent after states passed "right to carry" laws. Prof. John Lott's 1998 study "More Guns, Less Crime" also demonstrated that the most effective way to reduce crime is to issue concealed carry permits.
According to the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report, Maryland, which has a "discretionary" carry law and bans most handguns, has had the highest robbery rate in the nation for the fifth straight year, which is nearly twice the national average. The District of Columbia, which prohibits all handguns and requires all firearms to be registered, had a murder rate of 69 people per 100,000. Compare this to Indianapolis, located in a state that has very liberal gun laws (in the true sense of the word) including right to carry, which had a murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Do you suppose this "victim-rich environment" created by strict gun control laws in Washington DC and Maryland was one reason the two snipers choose that locale to launch their attacks though they had frequented other parts of the country?
Opposition to concealed carry is actually a very selfish and deadly notion. Just because some may have a squeamish aversion to firearms and may not be "comfortable" with the idea of guns in public places, does not justify denying the majority the right to protect their own lives. A Zogby poll indicated that 66 percent of Americans support RTC laws and a full 88 per cent would prefer to see retired police and military to serve as air marshals or deputies. Politicians are persuaded to claim "progress" by passing gun laws to appease their liberal constituents when they discover that it is far easier to control law-abiding citizens who are by nature compliant than to impede criminals. Government officials including police officers have guns for their protection. It is estimated that firearms are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year, which is three to five times the number of crimes committed with a gun. In 98 percent of those cases, the intended victim merely had to display the weapon. If you doubt that, just ask the criminal. Thirty-four percent of incarcerated felons said that they had been deterred by armed citizens. How many lives have been lost needlessly because of restrictive gun laws generated by emotional responses to tragedy?
Families and children are no safer because of the ban on carrying guns despite what proponents of gun control may feel. Strict gun control laws did not protect the thirteen-year old sniper victim shot in a Maryland schoolyard. The response to shootings such as occurred at LAX airport and the DC area should be to expand the presence of guns not limit them. Thomas Jefferson said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of armsSdisarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimesSSuch laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Armed citizens are not a menace, but are in fact guardians of the community. Patrick Henry observed, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Actually less than 1 percent of eligible citizens carry concealed arms, but it's enough to keep the criminal guessing. The police cannot be everywhere and technically are not legally responsible for your protection. That responsibility belongs to each individual as it should and as was intended by the 2nd Amendment.
By Chuck Busch
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith,1787.
"They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
If God didn't want us to eat animals, then he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
Comments
"Go to Lakedaemon, stranger passing by;
And say there, that in obedience to her law, here we lie"
And Article 4, Section 2 is pretty much meaningless: the proof lies in the fact that Vermont may have a shall-issue "privilege" or concealed-carry law, but that doesn't extend any such "privilege" to us stupid hayshakers here in Nebraska. So what does it mean, besides nothing? Just what IS a "privilege" or "immunity"?
It's just words, nothing but words.
The BOR and Big "C" really don't "protect" anything by way of "rights" when you get right down to it, because all the people in Government have to do is pass a restrictive law and say: "We're not infringing, we're regulating." They've been getting away with it for so long that it's established fact and standard practice, so we all might as well get used to it.