The city of Chicago, in 1982, decided to forgo the Bill of Rights and banned law-abiding citizens from owning handguns. Otis McDonald, a 76 year-old resident of Chicago, appealed the law, claiming it left him vulnerable to criminals – criminals who, not surprisingly, ignore the gun ban. Currently, the Supreme Court is reviewing the appeal, with most analysts expecting a ruling on the side of the 2nd Amendment.

Starbucks will continue to allow law-abiding citizens to open-carry firearms while on their premises. Open-carry is the act of carrying a firearm on your person in a manner in which the firearm is not concealed. Were you aware that some states allow their law-abiding citizens to openly carry loaded firearms in certain public places?

On February 22nd, concealed carry of firearms, by law-abiding citizens, was reinstated in National Parks throughout the United States (subject to state laws concerning concealed carry). Concealed carry is the act of carrying a firearm on your person in a manner in which the firearm is hidden from view.

Are we seeing a trend?

Let’s assume that we all have the right to defend ourselves (the right to self-defense) if we, or our loved ones, are being attacked. Considering that the 2nd amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to be armed, does it follow that such a condition (of having the right to self-defense) is permissible outside the confines of one’s own home?

Note that the stories I linked to, above, pertain to the actions of law-abiding citizens. Restricting the actions of the people, by law, only limits the actions of those who choose to follow said law (i.e., law-abiding citizens). Criminals, by their very nature, have always ignored the law – hence, that’s why they are criminals.

If you take a look at virtually all mass-shootings, you will note that they occur in “gun-free” zones (e.g., schools, military installations). You think there’s a reason for that? Doesn’t it make sense that, if Chicago bans guns, the criminal mind will think, “easy pickin’s”? Doesn’t it make sense that, if Starbucks allows open carry on its premises, the criminal mind will think, “um… not here, not now”? Doesn’t it make sense that, if concealed carry is allowed in National Parks, the criminal mind will think, “I wonder if that person is armed”?

As a gang-banger in Buffalo said, when asked what could be done to curtail the spike in homicides,

Buy a gun.

Yet gun hysteria remains.

New Mexico recently passed legislation regarding concealed carry in restaurants that served beer and wine. In a forum, at the New Mexico Independent, concerns were expressed over the fear of mixing alcohol and firearms. Yes, a good concern; and would restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying prevent law breakers from doing so? Forget the criminals, would we be safe from off-duty law enforcement officers in bars?

So, while al Qaeda praises the actions of the Fort Hood killer, we suspend a kindergartner for the dastardly crime of making a gun gesture with his hand. It’s time we take a rational look at gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

Tagged with: 2nd amendmentccwchicago gun banconcealed carryhandgunsopen carrysecond amendmentself defensestarbucks

Filed under: CultureRusty

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!