Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Self-defense, gun ownership, and homeland security
The State ^ | Dec 28, 2001 | Rick Daniel,

Posted on 12/29/2001 5:06:33 PM PST by PJeffQ

Self-defense, gun ownership, and homeland security
By RICK DANIEL
Guest Columnist

The current focus on homeland security has a growing number of Americans reevaluating their stance on personal safety and on the Second Amendment. Along with an increased demand for self-defense and firearms training, gun sales have skyrocketed. Individuals who previously scoffed at gun ownership are now finding a readily available firearm to be quite comforting.

Here in South Carolina, firearms and ammunition sales are helping to shore up a slow economy. Licensed firearms dealers are selling guns in record numbers. If not for legal impediments, they could sell even more. Training for concealed weapons permits is also on the rise as new gun owners learn how to best protect themselves and their families. There is a greater acknowledgment of the fact that personal security is fleeting and self-defense is almost a responsibility of good citizenship.

Terrorist attacks and armed robberies can't be averted by the police, who are often miles away when bad things happen. The heroic passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 understood this stark reality. Todd Beamer became one of the first in modern times to take on the awesome responsibility of homeland defense. The actions of Beamer and his fellow passengers saved the lives of thousands.

In South Carolina, more than 40,000 citizens have taken the considerable time and expense to obtain concealed weapons permits. Since these permits became readily available more than five years ago, SLED has reported no serious problems. While it is obvious to most that permit holders are good citizens, the law still places many restrictions on when and where they may carry guns. With so many responsible gun owners trained and available to help, shouldn't we be finding ways to encourage, rather than discourage, their participation in homeland defense?

Lawmakers should move quickly next year to recognize SLED's success with our concealed weapons program by removing many of the restrictions on concealed weapons permit holders; a good example is the prohibition against carrying guns in restrooms at interstate rest stops. This will instantly make our state a much safer place.

Licensed gun dealers also need fewer restrictions. Currently, gun dealers lose many sales because South Carolina limits individuals to the purchase of one handgun a month. While this gun rationing scheme may have once seemed logical, its supposed justification is no longer valid, and it needs to be repealed. Federal law is more than sufficient to deal with such potential problems as gun running. In fact, multiple sales must now be reported to the ATF, nullifying any benefit derived from impeding legal sales.

To assume that no one needs more than one gun is outrageous and shortsighted. The truth is that security-minded citizens often need several guns. Sadly, under current state law they are unable to buy one handgun for personal carry and another for home defense within 30 days. In the current budget crunch, the increased sales tax revenue would surely be welcomed. Also, eliminating the purchase restriction and its attendant paperwork will free up valuable law enforcement resources to deal with genuine crime problems. There is simply no demonstrable reason to maintain an outdated one-handgun-a-month law.

Lawmakers have an opportunity next year to make a lasting contribution to homeland security. Empowering citizens is the surest way to reach this goal while making things safer for everyone. Law-abiding gun owners, licensed firearms dealers and self-defense advocates are ready to help. The Legislature should recognize the potential of such a valuable coalition as it sets about working to strengthen South Carolina's first line of defense.

Mr. Daniel, president of Gun Owners of South Carolina, led the lobbying effort for passage of the state's concealed weapons law.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: Eagle Eye
I think you're probably right. I've been hoping for years now that the assault rifle ban won't be renewed in 2004, but that's a presidential election year, and as great a president as W has been I don't expect him to rock the boat on this one. It'll be a real test of character to support an unpopular position and I sure hope he passes. If he and the R's don't stand behind the 2nd ammendment at that time I'll be finished with them. They'll have to decide whether they stand with the constitution or whether they are traitors.
41 posted on 12/30/2001 8:11:01 AM PST by elmer fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Squantos; DaveCooper; Mercuria; HangFire; feinswinesuksass; nunya bidness
And South Carolina has a kickbutt AG:
(the following statement is found all over the place, I took it from here: http://www.lowcountrynow.com/stories/100601/LOCishooting.shtml)

In January (South Carolina Attorney General) Condon declared "open season," on home invaders and sent a letter to all solicitors, sheriffs and police chief directing that citizens acting to defend their homes will not be arrested, charged or prosecuted.

"Citizens protecting their homes who use force, even deadly force, will be fully safeguarded under the law of this state and subject to no arrest, charge or prosecutions," Condon said in a Jan. 24 press release. "In South Carolina, would-be intruders should now hear this: invade a home and invite a bullet."


42 posted on 12/30/2001 8:12:18 AM PST by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PJeffQ
Excellent article :)
43 posted on 12/30/2001 8:15:01 AM PST by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
And a pair of .38's as a backup..........gotta like that :o)

LMBO !! Stay Safe AAA ......

44 posted on 12/30/2001 8:30:08 AM PST by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jefferson Adams
and self-defense is almost a responsibility of good citizenship.

No 'almost' about it. Defense of self, family and country is the right, responsibility and duty of any rational human being. Pacifists are intellectually bankrupt and immoral fools. Right, JA?

A happy and prosperous new year to clan Adams from clan noumenon.

45 posted on 12/30/2001 8:35:47 AM PST by Noumenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
Great article, thanks for the ping!

Lawmakers have an opportunity next year to make a lasting contribution to homeland security. Empowering citizens is the surest way to reach this goal while making things safer for everyone.

This is applicable for everyone;-)

46 posted on 12/30/2001 11:40:57 AM PST by HangFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ; HangFire; Lady Jenn; Kithlyara; AZ Spartacus; feinswinesuksass; abigail2; AnneJustice4All...
BUMP...good post, Anna!!
47 posted on 12/30/2001 12:46:33 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria; AnnaZ
That was a very reassuring post Anna. An armed society is a polite society.
48 posted on 12/30/2001 12:54:07 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Terrorist attacks and armed robberies can't be averted by the police, who are often miles away when bad things happen.

I have a friend that is a police officer. I was with him one day and there were 10 or 12 calls on the radio but he couldn't take any of them because the calls required 2 officers. All the other officers were tied up on other calls. He finally ended up taking a call miles away just to chase some homeless people away from a 7-11.

Moral of the story - protect yourself.

49 posted on 12/30/2001 1:18:52 PM PST by Brownie74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Good article but what still bothers me most is the endorsement or allowance of any type registration or permits at all. It's a list waiting for the wrong persons to use at the right time. For that reason I will not buy weapons from public sales. It's none of Uncles business. Only the dumbest of criminals are caught by these laws as they will buy weapons through illegal means anyway.
50 posted on 12/30/2001 1:34:11 PM PST by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
WOW! Come on Connecticut ... wake up!
51 posted on 12/30/2001 1:35:39 PM PST by 2Trievers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!

No Guns, No Rights !!

Molon Labe !!

Happy New Year !!

52 posted on 12/30/2001 1:47:30 PM PST by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria, AnnaZ

"Invade a home and invite a bullet"

I think I'm gonna make a cross-stitch of that and hang in on the wall in my den. Kind of a subtle (yet homespun) warning. :)

Thanks for the ping, Merc. And for the great post, Anna.

I posted a variation of the following on another thread last week (in response to proposed Kennedy/Schumer gun control, 'anti-terrorism' legislation), but it is relevant here, too:

Put simply, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the fundamental right of self-defense. Be it self defense against foreign invasion, a political coup, our own encroaching government, or the criminal element. It was for this reason that the Constitution authorized 'the militia' (i.e., the people) to be used 'to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.'

The Second Amendment thus guaranteed the freedom to keep and bear arms as a defense against 'terrorism' (be it home-grown or foreign) of any kind. So to use the threat of terrorism to disarm Americans is disingenuous at best....devious at worst, and certainly the antithesis of the founding fathers' intent in penning the words the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The fundamental right to the means of self defense has not changed since the eighteenth century, and an armed citizenry continues to have great value both to those who choose to be armed and to their fellow citizens. Had just one of the passengers on any one of the four doomed flights had a firearm in his or her possession, the tragic scenario on at least one of those flights might have been different.

None of the hijackers was armed with anything more lethal than a box cutter. So why the cry for greater control of guns as a strategy to combat terrorism? Simply because anything that chips away at the peace of mind of the average American (and the events of 9/11 surely fall under that unsettling category) is ripe for exploitation by the leftist, Constitution-loathing, gun control crowd, of which Schumer and Kennedy are charter members.

Schumer, Kennedy, and their ilk need to pay heed to the words of Justice Benjamin Cardozo, in The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921):

The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders.

Make no mistake, Senators Kennedy and Schumer: You are the opportunists/encroachers of whom Justice Cardozo speaks. And the liberty-loving gun owners of America comprise the body of defenders. And we are resolute and immovable. Don't push.

53 posted on 12/30/2001 5:03:27 PM PST by joanie-f
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie, AnnaZ, mercuria
Thanks for the heads up.
54 posted on 12/30/2001 10:14:44 PM PST by the irate magistrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
To my original idea of suing the pants off the Anti 2nd Amendment bunch (for wrongful deaths due to gun restrictions, and exploiting public fears to sell their agenda), I'd like to add one more idea. Force the anti-gunners to do without. No guns for Rosie's bodyguards, no bogus concealed carry permits for Diane. If you come out in public and say you are anti-gun, then you should not be allowed to own one, in any way, shape or form. No protection for you period. If you get attacked, mugged, robbed, etc..go call 911, see you far you get. And no bodyguards for you either. You go it alone like all the people who you wish to disarm, then see how long you stay safe.
55 posted on 12/30/2001 10:34:42 PM PST by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PJeffQ
Wow, it's surprising that the socialist "State" newspaper would publish this article, but I'm glad they did. The author makes a good argument for the position of all of us as gun owners.
56 posted on 12/31/2001 6:17:29 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJeffQ
a good example is the prohibition against carrying guns in restrooms at interstate rest stops

This is clearly one of those places where one is very well advised to be armed, most especially when the rest area has no attendant and only the rest room is open. A few years back when making a stop for a call of nature some young males entered the rest room and I got the door to my stall kicked in. Since I had heard the ample discussion of their need to get some money I had prepared by filling my hand with a model 1911 while eotherwise occuppied. When one of these young men kicked in the stall door they got very wide eyed at the site of a cocked unlocked firearm pointing at there center of mass.

They offered profuse apologies for disturbing me and decided to leave forthwith.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

57 posted on 12/31/2001 7:35:04 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f
An absolutely excellent post. As always.
 
Gosh, I've missed you!
 
(((cyberhugs!)))

58 posted on 12/31/2001 7:51:40 AM PST by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; HangFire; Mercuria
And then there's the story of a lady in Arizona who had to do some long distance driving and found herself in need of visiting a rest stop. A semi was idling in the lot, otherwise the place was deserted. Worried about AZs laws against concealed carry she held her gun close to her side, mostly hidden by the folds of her skirt, as she made her way to the "powder room".
 
Upon exiting the facilities, the large driver of the semi jumped out at her, a length of knotted rope in his hands. She pulled up her piece and he ran, muttering, over and over, "Bitches With Guns"

59 posted on 12/31/2001 8:05:30 AM PST by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: goodieD
some excellent points...

FReegards,

David

60 posted on 12/31/2001 8:17:44 AM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson