I have no interest at all in what any toady from the Treasury has to say about my inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Posted on 01/14/2002 10:35:13 AM PST by dhuffman@awod.com
Concealed carry not the answer
Thursday, January 10, 2002
On Jan. 1, your Public Forum published a letter titled, "Illinois needs concealed-carry law." I would like to respond to that letter because the last thing Illinois or any other state needs is a concealed-carry law. I realize that some misguided states have enacted conceal-carry laws to satisfy a minority of their citizens. Those states have ignored the right of the rest of their citizens, and visitors to their states, to go about their daily lives without being exposed to the potential danger of bullets fired by people carrying legally concealed firearms. While I have seen no statistics showing that people are being accidentally shot daily by indiscriminate shooting from people carrying legally concealed firearms, I sincerely doubt that accidental shootings will not occur in the future. One has only to review news reports of the many people killed and injured each year by hunters legally carrying and discharging firearms during the hunting seasons to know that an intended target is not always a proper target, and it is not always the only thing shot. Those wanting concealed-carry laws should be assured that, no matter how well intentioned their actions, they can do more harm than good. In addition, if they harm some innocent person they will no doubt be sued for every cent they have, or will ever have. Legal carry proponents contend that crime statistics show a drop in crime in states authorizing legal carry. However, FBI statistics show that crime is down across the country. If concealed carry had even a small effect on crime prevention, I doubt that concealed carry is the answer to further drops in the crime rate. I am a retired U.S. Treasury agent, and I can tell you unequivocally that no law enforcement officer wants to rely on guns in the hands of the general public as a means of enforcing the laws of this country. In addition, no law enforcement officer, uniformed or in plain clothes, while in the performance of his or her duty, would be happy to be confronted with a situation where a civilian either draws a gun, or is found to be carrying one for any reason. Despite the civilian's good intentions, such people would be in substantial peril. Proponents of concealed carry say that there is no record of abuse of the right to carry concealed firearms, that an armed society is a polite society. To this I say, "Just wait. It is just a matter of time." Just because a state has allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons, it has not automatically endowed them with good sense, or complacent tempers. Lastly, if an armed society is a polite society, Afghanistan must be a country of very polite people. Just the type of society we need. Not! Joseph A. De Leon |
Ed Koziarski ekoziarski@dailysouthtown.com Editorial Page Editor
Phil Jurik pjurik@dailysouthtown.com Sports Editor
George Haas ghaas@dailysouthtown.com Features Editor
Bill Ruminski bruminski@dailysouthtown.com Business Editor
John Hector jhector@dailysouthtown.com Metro Editor
Columnists
Phil Arvia parvia@dailysouthtown.com Sports
Phil Kadner pkadner@dailysouthtown.com News
Donna Vickroy dvickroy@dailysouthtown.com Features Department
Email News, Features, Business news@dailysouthtown.com Sports sports@dailysouthtown.com
Online Publication Ed Czerwinski eczerwinski@dailysouthtown.com Online Manager
Illustrating the depths of ignorance through which we wade.
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
More us and them that we are not supposed to recognize. Just lick the boots.
Separate note: Chicago just overtook New York in the number of annual homicides.
The two items above are not, of course, related. As is the statistic that shows not only lower homicide rates in CCW states, but that abuse of guns by CCW holders is miniscule to non-existent.
But hey, facts are irrelevant in the face of imagined fears.....
For what it's worth, I spend a lot of time around cops, hunters, and licensed-to-carry civilians, and nearly EVERY negligent discharge I've witnessed has come from the hands of a cop who was playing cowboy.
-archy-/-
Straw man argument. No one is suggesting that an armed public start enforcing laws. Those carrying concealed simply want to defend themselves if necessary, and have something other than their bare hands to do it with.
A 'firearm' is the greatest equalizer a woman can have - and this guy says no way should you carry it.
Well scr*w him ...
I have no interest at all in what any toady from the Treasury has to say about my inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Translation from Federalese into ordinary American English: "I want my pals to keep their jobs. An armed citizenry and laws that honor the Second Amendment's commitment to the right to keep and bear arms will not only lead to lower crime, but also will cut down on arrests, raids, and prosecutions of ordinary, law-abiding American citizens on the basis of some 'gun control' law's provisions. That means less need for armed Federal agents and lower law enforcement budgets. Screw that." [End of translation]
As a 16 year LEO, I can say this guy is an idiot. The public is much safer (and freer) with RKBA.
Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it? The proletariat can't be trusted with guns- they can ONLY be handled by the exquisitely well-trained Law Enforcement folks, like this bozo.
When I have a T-Man assigned to me (and every member of my family) as a personal bodyguard, I will reconsider carrying my own pistol. (Well, no I won't, really- I trust myself more than I do most Government employees with guns. Think WACO).
No, because they are for only themselves having all the power. They do not want armed citizens that at one time might protect themselves from the criminals but the next time might be tempted to protect themselves from the "Jackbooted Thugs" that we know may federal agents are.
I realize that some misguided states have enacted conceal-carry laws to satisfy a minority of their citizens. Those states have ignored the right of the rest of their citizens, and visitors to their states, to go about their daily lives without being exposed to the potential danger of bullets fired by people carrying legally concealed firearms.
Our founding fathers did not seem to have a problem with armed citizens. They thought it important enough to put in the constitution.
Funny, I don’t see “the right of the citizens…to go about their daily live without being exposed to …danger..” What ammendment is that?
You don't, we do. STFU.
My understanding is that firearms are held the exclusive domain of tribal paramilitaries in their respective regions over which they exercise absolute authority. If firearms were possessed generaly by the regular folks (including women) how could it be that these regional "police" could , with such regularity, survive their nightly forays of rape and plunder among the citizenry?
There was an article a few weeks ago that exploded this Afghani myth that's been circulated by the media; in Afghanistan, only the police have arms.
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.