Posted on 08/14/2010 6:50:39 AM PDT by marktwain
Two nights ago, my daughter’s boyfriend asked me “Why do you carry a gun?” I told him I had the right to protect my family. Wrong answer. My “right” wasn’t in question. Nor should it be. My unconditional right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Says so right there: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Infringe as in “to limit or undermine.” So the Rhode Island concealed carry process, which asks me roughly the same question as my first born’s squeeze (and a bunch more queries besides), violates my constitutional rights. But it’s still an excellent question. The correct response: “I have an obligation to protect my family.”
To which many gun rights groups would add “and myself.” Same thing. The survival of my favored genetic legacy (both blood and adopted) is my prime directive. I can’t protect my family’s interests if I’m dead.
So I do what it takes to make sure I can do what it takes to make sure my loved ones live, and live well. My home-defense handgun is a means to that end: a tool to help me protect my family.
While the vast majority of Americans understand, appreciate and support the idea of owning a firearm for self-defense, there are those who would infringe upon my right to bear arms by limiting it (as much as possible) to home defense. As is the case here in Rhode Island.
Further afield, the Supreme Court’s recent McDonald decision recently struck down Chicago’s handgun ban. But it singularly and spectacularly failed to address Windy City residents’ right to bear arms wherever they choose. In fact, the Court’s affirmation of “reasonable” restrictions more of less upheld Chicago’s—and thus Illinois’ and Rhode Island’s—proscriptive concealed carry laws.
Simply put, post-McDonald, if a Chicago resident holding a legally registered firearm puts so much as one foot outside their door, even onto his porch, they can be arrested, fined and jailed. Here in the Ocean State, I face the same penalties if I take one step off my land whilst armed.
Where’s the sense in that?
Does the right to maintain effective self-defense begin and end on your doorstep or your property’s perimeter? Common sense suggests that the right to bear arms is a hundred times more important out there. Beyond your “castle” walls. Where the real monsters live.
Every day, gun violence strikes someone down in this country. Most of the time, it’s gang-related. Illegal drugs account for the next largest chunk of the poisoned pie. Avoid gangs and illegal drugs and you reduce the threat to your safety a thousand-fold. Yes but . . .
Check out Women dies saving granddaughter at signonsandiego.com:
Sharrel Blankenbaker, 63, sacrificed her life last week when she stood up to an armed kidnapper who was pulling Cassidy into his truck at an Amarillo, Texas, gas station . . .
They stopped at a Love’s truckstop and store for drinks and a bathroom break. It was when they were walking back to their car that an overweight man in a cowboy hat and boots jumped out of his pickup and latched onto Cassidy’s wrist.
“He pointed a gun at me and told me, ‘Get in my truck.’ My grandma wouldn’t let him,” Cassidy said.
Her grandmother got in between them, yelling at the man to get away.
“He shot her, and I had gotten my arm loose from him. And I started running away, but he chased me,” Cassidy said.
Her brother, who had already carried his younger cousin to safety, came back for Cassidy. They ducked behind the counter of the gas station.
Then another man came in, frantically looking for his daughter.
The kidnapper had her. He had forced her into his pickup as she was walking along the road with a friend.
After relaying a description of the truck to 911, Potter County sheriff’s deputies pulled over Gary Don Carner, 58, who died in an exchange of gunfire. His 11-year-old captive was able to flee from the pickup and jump into a ditch.
Earlier that night, Carner had failed in attempts to kidnap two women.
This tragedy is statistically irrelevant. You can round down the chances of a random perp kidnapping your/my child at a gas station to zero. If you want to take an effective step to keep your children alive, teach them to buckle their seat belts whenever they get in a car.
Also, who’s to say that Granny could have used a handgun successfully? She may have shot her granddaughter by mistake. Or someone else’s kid. Hell, they all could have died in a gunfight. Not to mention the fact that her granddaughter might have shot herself accidentally before the family members even hit the road.
The average concealed carry handgun owner understands these risks. Some, like myself, train to minimize them. But we’ve decided to carry a gun on our person because we want the power to defend ourselves and the ones we love against out worst nightmare. As is our right.
At the moment, I’m restricted to home carry. Later today, I’m going to write a letter to the Providence Police explaining why I want a license to carry a concealed weapon. I still don’t know what to write. The truth: I want to protect my family against the unthinkable. How do you explain that without sounding like a nut?
The “worst case scenario” justification should be enough to guarantee the exercise of my constitutional right. But will it?
Thank you ... I can digest quality logic.
Yes. It wasn’t reported.
I just didn’t want him bothering me and I had been trying to get rid of him for months. Every time I’d try to date someone else this guy would be jumping out of the bushes and making a scene. He was destroying my life.
I told his mother what had happened the next day and if he ever came near me again the police would be involved. I didn’t hate him or want him locked up, I just wanted to be left alone. And after the incident with the gun, he stopped.
“my daughter’s boyfriend asked me “Why do you carry a gun?””
I BET he did! Every father with a daughter should at least give the impression of *carrying*. (and possible hostility)
Stock up!
Obama has an entire Entourage with guns to protect him no matter where he goes.
Let him walk around like they like to see the average citizen without any protection.
All the rich and famous ,a lot of whom are against people having guns, can always hire a body guard with a carry permit.
Take away all the guns from the police and see how they make out.
We have put the wrong people in Public office and they treat us with derision.
“When I was in high school, every kid who was fortunate enough to own a pick up, had a gun rack in it and the rack had one or more rifles or shot guns in it.”
Same here although not necessarily HS kids. You do that today and walk into the store and when you come back, it’ll be gone. Might be useful to do this in Texas for a TruTV series called “Bait Truck”
Next time, or next boyfriend, just tell him you carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy.
BO, (before Obama)you could find them on sale for less than $15.00.
The operative word is "unconditional". No America citizen has to explain his reason to own a means of self defense. The purpose can range from paper weights to door stops with no further explanation necessary.
If you haven’t seen this testimony you need to see it now, right now, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For
Pay particular attention to her closing statement with a slow wave of her hand.
That is right, it is against the law for the government to infringe upon any ones rights to keep and bare arms.
anything that will make it harder to do so is an infringement,
permits, size etc.
However private citizens can infringe on our rights where their property is concerned.
It was cheap ammo, with maybe 1-2 % misfires, but good for practice.
Right-wing blogger convicted of threatening Illinois judges
Comments
August 14, 2010
ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK -— A right-wing New Jersey blogger was convicted at his third trial Friday of making threats against three federal judges in Illinois in retaliation for a ruling supporting gun control.
A Brooklyn jury deliberated less than two hours before finding Hal Turner guilty of making death threats.
» Click to enlarge image
Hal Turner faces up to 10 years in prison for making threats.
(AP)
A judge jailed Turner, of North Bergen, N.J., following the verdict. His attorney declined comment.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, thanked the jurors for their service.
“There is no place in society for threatening federal judges with violence. Period,” he said in a statement. “We are grateful that the jury saw these threats for what they were and rejected any notion that they were acceptable speech.”
Turner’s mother, Kathy Diamond, said the verdict showed the jury didn’t understand that “the First Amendment was the issue.” She said her son, who is married and has a teenage son, “is a good man.”
“The family is devastated,” she added.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/2598072,blogger-convicted-threats-illinois-judges-081410.article#
I have had similar ideas. It seems as though stings such as this would be used more widely. You would think enterprising police chiefs and Sheriffs would do so. Why don't we?
I recall a program done in San Francisco, where they had “bait” people flashing money and trolling for thieves. They caught quite a few.
As for me, I thought the .45 was a good enough service weapon.
How do you sneak up on 60? Man! That year hit me so fast it left me spinning in its wake........
"Impression"? I made a practice of meeting their dates at the door, wearing my well-filled shoulder rig -- but with no jacket.
Some of em almost bailed out at that point.
The one who said, "WOW! Is that a HK? I'd love to shoot that some time!!" is now my son-in-law. Great guy -- and he carries a P7 like mine... '-)
And I recall that they apprehended the same guy twice in nine months. One can only imagine the hundreds of crimes this guy probably committed during that nine months.
> The struggle over this amuses me. The infringement on the 2nd amendment by tyranists carries as much weight as King George arguing against the emancipation of the colonies after July 4th, 1776.
The latter was settled over gunfire; the former may need to be settled the same way.
Sorry to hear that. That’s just wrong!
The ages of daughter and boyfriend are not clear ...
but if they're over 21, a good reply would be "why don't you?" At over-21, the young man may very likely become her husband ... I don't want her married to some pansy who can't or won't protect my daughter and my grand-children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.