ME: Disarmist shows lack of Imagination

Gun Watch ^ | 3 July, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Maine is moving toward constitutional or permitless carry.  It is not a large step for Maine, which has a fairly liberal concealed carry law and constitutional open carry.   The bill, LD 652 need only be signed by the Governor to become law, and it seems likely that Governor Le Page will sign it.  But that does not stop a Maine disarmist from complaining.  From centralmain.com:

"And there is no good I can see in having anyone carry concealed guns
without permits, training, background checks and minimum age
requirements."

So it all comes down to a lack of imagination on the author's part. I can easily see lots of good. A saving in money and time by thousands of people. An increase in personal freedom and a shrinking of an intrusive state bureaucracy. Numerous innocent people who are no longer subject to arrest, fines, and imprisonment.

Hundreds of women and men who are able to defend themselves against criminal attack, animal attack or who now begin to believe that the Constitution actually means something.

Might there be some harm?  Sure, it is possible, but the experience of other States indicate that it will be so small as to be negligible.   

The author seems to belong to the statist school of thought: Everything that is not allowed is forbidden! 

The legal system in the United States is the opposite: Everything that is not forbidden is allowed!  

There is an enormous practical difference between the two philosophises, as indicated by the article.   We have pushed further and further toward the statist system of government for a hundred years.   It is time to push the pendulum back toward freedom.

 

 Definition of  disarmist 

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

If government regulation can be reduced without measurable harm, it should always be done. The default position should always be less government.

[marktwain]

Government does harm simply by existing. A decrease in liberty is harm. In order to justify that harm, positive, measurable benefits must be shown overall, at a minimum, not just some hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky mythical possibility of benefit.

Liberals and Progressives are very good at constructing hypothetical situations that show the benefit of more and more government power. They are also pretty good at creating false data showing government benefits.

They are really good at ignoring real world harm caused by the government.

[Pollster1]

I can easily see lots of good. A saving in money and time by thousands of people.

When someone has relatively little warning (days rather than months) of a threat, as with emerging stalkers and irate ex-boyfriends, that saving in time and money can save the life of an innocent person. Even if the stalker's intended victim does not choose to carry, the uncertainty arising from constitutional carry may save lives. I do not believe that the cultural phenomenon of "stalker" would have arisen in an area where concealed carry was pervasive.

[dljordan]

“They are really good at ignoring real world harm caused by the government.”

So are ‘conservatives’.

[Noumenon]

Liberals are state supremacists. I use that term every chance I get. Meses with their heads, it does.

[Lurker]

I call them what they are, fascist totalitarians. I’m done being polite. If they keep pushing I’ll quit being civil.

They won’t like that at all, not one little bit.

[Noumenon]

Not everyone knows how to fight. It’s a real shock to those who don’t.