Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety.
If this is so, then why has violent crime dropped disproportionately in every state where shall issue has been adopted?? Also, if this piece of balderdash is true, where are the (nonexistent) peer reviewed studies that refute John Locke's excellent book, More Guns, Less Crime.
By focusing so obsessively on an individual’s rights — in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library — all other rights are shoved aside.
What other rights aren't even mentioned. It's the gun grabbers, not the NRA, that have done a really great job of destroying our other rights, like free speech with the McCain/Finegold abomination and private property rights with the USSC Kelo monstrosity. If we just talk about carrying guns in public places, like libraries, the right of everyone else to be personally secure and protected from mass terrorist shootings is greatly enhanced. Once again look at John Locke's work on mass public shootings that shows shall issue spectacularly reduces them, something this nitwit doesn't even bother to address.
He also contradicts himself later in the article where he writes: Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights.
What’s worse, by granting this right to individuals, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot. The police are trained to handle guns. The criminals know they’re not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A.
This law and the "castle doctrine" actually enhance the public's right "to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot." The massive drop in violent crime of all types and, especially, mass public shootings that accompanies adoption of shall issue and the "castle doctrine" prove this. Again, nitwit here fails even to address the studies that conclusively show the tremendous public safety benefits of shall issue and the "castle doctrine." Also the NRA has been a leader in making sure criminals don't get guns and, even more important, in assuring stiff sentencing for people who commit violent crimes with guns. Methinks nitwit here is horrified by heavy sentencing of criminals and, especially (HORRORS!!) the death penalty.
Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual.
Finally we get to the nub of the liberal and Marxist objection to the NRA: the NRA is one of our greatest advocates of America and our unique rights and freedoms as Americans, something the left absolutely abominates and despises.
Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights.
He's right on with this remark; that's why I'm a proud Endowing Member of the NRA, an NRA Golden Eagle, and why I'm going to contribute $200 to the NRA PVF this election season.
My apologies to John Lott and the rest of you; the early morning fuzzies got to me when I called him "John Locke."
There's at least two other reasons to read the Terrorist Tip Sheet, especially when it's still at no charge. Their stories can still be first excellent, in particular, their health & science articles if they avoid politics. Their OpEd Contributors can also be excellent. Check the author that's linked in comment# 43. It's John R. Lott Jr.