“So, I don’t know the totality of the proposal, so I’m not commenting on the NRA proposal in particular because I don’t know it yet, but I am not someone who believes that having multiple armed guards in every school is something that will enhance the learning environment, and that’s our first responsibility inside of school, is the learning environment,” he said.
He continued: “You don’t want to make this an armed camp for kids. I don’t think that’s a positive example for children. We should be able to figure out some other ways to enhance safety it seems to me. I think that’s the easy way out.”
-Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey
And then there's this from the notoriously conservative New York Post...
It should be noted that the only folks supporting Wayne LaPierre are the 20%'ers. They're the same, marginalized group of radical conservatives who belong to the Tea Party and consistently vote for anyone with an "R" after their name, no matter if they agree with their positions or not, because they hate Liberals so much.
If you're not a 20%'er, why the hell are you giving money to this militant organization?
[NY Post image via]
.
27 comments:
Why is having armed guards at schools a *bad* or *militant* idea?
Do you honestly expect us to believe that if the NRA did not propose this, but the new Biden "task force" did first, that you would be leveling the same accusations at Biden and calling him a *militant*?
Having reviewed your policy, in certify in good faith I do not believe the above questions (although partly rhetorical) are "spam, vulgar language, trolling or off-topic."
Well, like I said JM, you're a slow learner. The above is a fine example of a legit question. You're coming along.
The NRA earns its "militant" tag not from this one suggestion but from years of opposing reasonable efforts to promote firearm safety. The resignation of George H.W. Bush years ago and the comments of these two conservative stalwarts today, among others, shows that the move to radicalize the organization's ideology continues. And do we really have to talk about members like Gun Free Zone and yourself who epitomize everything that is wrong with hardcore firearm culture today?
I tend to agree with Christie on this particular issue and would point to Columbine as an example of where having an armed officer at a school does not help.
.
1. "Columbine as an example of where having an armed officer at a school does not help"
That one example is countered by others document by Professor Volokh:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/14/do-civilians-armed-with-guns-ever-capture-kill-or-otherwise-stop-mass-shooters/?ModPagespeed=noscript
Put simply, the notion that the typical private citizen is incapable of rising to the occasion is a myth. And please don't start with the nonsense that gun owners have some Walter Mitty fantasy of blowing someone away. Just because we don't agree with false statements of our inability to act, does not mean we wake up every day hoping to act. At this point, carrying a gun has become like tying my shoes, I do it without thinking and encountering danger is the farthest thing from my mind every day.
Most Jewish day schools in Florida have armed guards, either uniformed or discreetly plain clothed. It does not create an atmosphere of intimidation or militancy, many parents don't notice and those that know are happy about it.
2. "The NRA earns its "militant" tag not from this one suggestion but from years of opposing reasonable efforts to promote firearm safety."
The NRA is at the forefront of promoting firearms safety. It expends significant resources towards firearms safety education, safety training, promoting secure storage, etc. AFAIK, the US government devotes absolutely no resources to firearms safety training, not even teaching kids in school what to do if they stumble upon a firearm at home, a friend's home, or on the street. With something like 300 million firearms in US circulation, how is that a responsible policy?
I think what you meant to say was that you disagree with the stances the NRA has taken with respect to access to certain types of firearms or firearms registration generally.
But that is not "militancy," which implies that the NRA somehow actively promotes the criminal or anti-social use of firearms. It never has and never does that. It may promote ownership for reasons you disagree with, but again, that is a far cry from "militancy."
Or maybe I do not understand your use of the term "militant". Is planned parenthood a "militant" abortion group? Is mediamatters.org "militant"? Or are only foxnews and the NRA militant? Please define your terms.
3. "And do we really have to talk about members like Gun Free Zone and yourself who epitomize everything that is wrong with hardcore firearm culture today?"
I fail to see how such rhetoric does not violate the very rules you claim govern the discourse on your blog.
The fact is both Miguel and I are concealed carry permit holders, just two of 1 million in Florida. Statistically speaking, CWP holders have an extremely low crime rate. I don't know what he does for a living. I am a respected professional. My wife, a proud NRA member and CWP holder cares for the elderly, and is a vegetarian.
Sorry you find us to be such horrible people. We do not ipso facto oppose all laws regulating weapons. What we do oppose are laws that sound good in theory (to those unfamiliar with the nuances of firearms), but in reality do nothing to make anyone safer and are therefore a pointless restriction on our rights. Especially when the proponents of such laws have no interest in debate, and are scapegoating firearms and their owners to hide the fact that they have no plan to deal with the underlying cause of violence, i.e. society's creation of a person willing to commit such acts.
This is even more troubling to us because we live in a society that became great by respecting constitutional principals. We let guilty criminals back on the streets to murder, rape and molest because an officer innocently forgot to read him miranda rights. We incite murder and riots in foreign countries because it is legal here to burn a Koran and post it on youtube. Abortion? Freedom to travel means in Florida 3 DUIs before you permanently loose your DL. Nobody dares tally up all the deaths (and worse) that has resulted from our devotion to constitutional principles, in many instances advanced more "militantly" by "progressives" than conservatives. And I am not saying those policies are wrong. But society thinks deeply and carefully about all the other amendments, and is willing to suffer for them, but for some reason the 2nd amendment all that suffices is knee jerk, emotional policy, advanced most aggressively by people who know absolutely nothing about guns, have no handle on the statistics, and think every gun owner owns cammo and flies a confederate flag. (again, this is rhetoric and not necessarily a personal attack on you or any of your readers...unless of course it is true...)
4. From my perspective, maybe the NRA would have a different posture if for the last few decades it didn't have to fight for the 2nd amendment's existence. It wasn't until 2008 that the battle was won in the Supreme Court in Heller. So you had Washington DC trampling all over their citizens constitutional rights, Illinois (Obama's stomping grounds) likewise, and somebody has to pay for that litigation. Where was the ACLU?
Why do I need an AR-15?
Well what does that mean? Why does anyone need to post a video of a Koran burning on YouTube? Why does a criminal need their Miranda rights read to them upon arrest? Why do people need to smoke pot? Why do people need to drink alcohol? Why do women from stable economic backgrounds in perfect health with healthy fetuses need to terminate the pregnancy? Do people really need these things? Does society really benefit from these things? Is society endangered by these things? What does the L in ACLU stand for?
For most of our constitutional rights, the state can limit them if the state can demonstrate a) that the restriction will actually solve b) a compelling problem. Both a) and b), not just one or the other. We don't restrain people's rights over trivial problems. And we don't restrain them unless the restraint will actually solve the problem.
Nobody disagrees that gun violence is a serious problem. However, society's fear of it is grossly disproportionate to the actual risk in the same way plane crashes make people afraid to fly when it safer than driving. A plane crash is horrific, no doubt. 9/11 was horrific, but a lot of people argue persuasively that we overreacted and overly constrained our liberties. But let's assume gun violence is a serious problem and not even question the real statistical dangers, for the sake of argument.
Why won't certain groups entertain the idea that so-called "common sense" approaches won't work? Conservatives are ridiculed for suggesting that teenage pregnancy can be prevented somewhat by the "common sense" approach of encouraging abstinence. But the "wiser" man/woman says a) teens like to rebel against advice and b) the hormones are too powerful, so therefore we'll have better results handing out condoms. And the "wiser" man wins because he has actually thought out the problem based on real experience and pragmatism.
And yet the people who know about guns try and explain that a) assault weapon bans won't save lives and b) magazine capacity bans wont' save lives and c) there are other ways to prevent gun violence, but certain groups don't want to hear why the "common sense" solutions will fail, and simply want their "common sense" solutions to proceed, with no real answer to the criticism from gun owners in the know who have spent thousands of hours and dollars either professionally or as hobbyists living with firearms. The "wise" man/woman is nowhere to be found on gun policy.
Then the next tragedy happens, and we wash rinse and repeat. What did Einstein say was insane?
"What did Einstein say was insane?"
Actually, that quote about the definition of insanity is attributed incorrectly to Einstein. Most likely it was Rita Mae Brown in her novel "Sudden Death."
Rick-
Please note that Bobby's comment is off topic. According to your rules which you fairly enforce, it should be deleted. Please do so.
Meow.
Good argument Rick.
I'm honored that you're anticipating my response, JM. I may get around to it later today. Maybe not. We'll see. Keep checking back.
.
Jewish Marksman,
The Tiahrt Amendment prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. In other words, researchers cannot view this information (even anonymized and in aggregate, by the way).
Would you be in support of overturning this amendment?
Anon
I'm reminded of the saying "quality, not quantity" when I read your responses here at SFDB, JM. I imagine readers review such a response and are overwhelmed not only by their length but also because of their duplicity and disingenuousness. I'm not going to address all points since I don't wish to devote valuable time to such an endeavor, but there are a couple things that leap out at me.
1. So even though you agree that Columbine is an example of how having an armed officer on school property can do next to nothing to protect children during a mass murder, you are making the argument that because there are other examples of ARMED CIVILIANS taking out a gunman AFTER he had done his dirty work and committed multiple murders then the NRA's suggested police patrols of schools is justified. One plus one never equals four except when it comes to that kind of logic. We're talking about police officers patrolling school grounds during class time, JM. It makes schools appear like prison camps and it doesn't prevent school slaughters. Columbine remains Exhibit One in proving that point.
2. The NRA is at the forefront of promoting firearms safety.
Oh, they still do it, alright. But first and foremost they are a gun industry lobbying group. I would suggest that any group that juggles opposing trigger locks and ANY restrictions on military style assault rifles has moved away from a primary purpose of "firearms safety."
3. At this point, carrying a gun has become like tying my shoes, I do it without thinking and encountering danger is the farthest thing from my mind every day.
So you carry only because it's a habit? Only because it's a routine? You maintain your weapon, go to the shooting range, purchase bullets, obtain a gun safe, and determine the best way to conceal your weapon "without thinking" and because "danger is the farthest thing from [your] mind." That, JM, might be the biggest load of BS you've served up here. At least I hope it is, because if it isn't, it's frightening that you're wandering around South Florida.
Go back into Gun Free Zone's archive and read about how he almost blew away his yardman because he caught a sudden movement out of the corner of his eye while he was kicking back on his back porch one day. Or how he wouldn't hesitate to paint some one with his laser sight if they were acting strange on the street outside of his house. Or how he posts guides to insurrection and counter insurgency on his blog and the comments he gets. Consider suggestions that the government is coming to take away his guns and that they better be prepared when they do, etc., and I think you'll find the answer to your question about militancy...and it's all being driven by an organization that benefits immensely when paranoid people buy guns and believe that they may lose them. Also, "cold, dead hands."
As distasteful as I find all of the above, even more disturbing is how you and your kind stand around in circles and toss around incendiary, anti-government rhetoric but when you mix it up with those outside of that circle you throw up your hands, back up and cowardly try to distance yourself from it.
It's that kind of rhetoric that gives pro-gun fanatics and the NRA a bad name You've all earned it.
Now how about manning up and owning it?
.
JM: This is so intriguing as well as poorly expressed I'd love to hear more about it when you take a breath: "For most of our constitutional rights, the state can limit them if the state can demonstrate a) that the restriction will actually solve b) a compelling problem."
Anon- Re: Tihart. I am not sure what you mean by a firearms trace database. Generally speaking, I believe the government should be subject to the highest degree of transparency possible. However, I believe that maintaining the privacy of individual gun owners is a public safety issue, and possibly a civil rights issue. Other than that, there is probably a middle ground to open data up, but I would have to ask you to be more specific.
Squathole: When the state acts to limit a right, that state action is subjected to one of several tests in order to pass constitutional muster. Google "strict scrutiny", "rational basis" and "intermediate scrutiny" for explanations for more detailed than is appropriate here.
Rick: Once again your response is laden with personal attacks, but I'll be the grown up and ignore them.
1. Armed guards. In the examples cited by Volokh, the shooter was indeed killed before he killed more people. If we move towards a world where schools are KNOWN to be guarded, the idea is to deter the acts from happening. You are right, no security is perfect. We know people are smuggling weapons past TSA at the airports. But the idea is that you don't sit back and do nothing. The guards don't necessarily need uniforms. Here in S.Fla. you'd be surprised how many private schools are protected by plain-clothes licensed security (disguised as landscapers and maintenance workers) so parents and kids are none the wiser. Your rhetoric of having armed uniformed guards as somehow creating a police state aura is pure opinion, with which I disagree. We have cops at our Holiday Parades and kids don't seem scared or intimidated. And the bottom line is, empirically it seems to work in countries like Israel. The harm in trying is minimal. Keep in mind, Feinstein wants to use the National Guard!
2. I oppose mandatory trigger locks, and so does SCOTUS. But I do support trigger locks for those who feel it is right for their situation. I do support optional lock boxes and safes, which I use religiously. I do support current Florida law which criminalizes access to firearms by minors. Opposing mandatory locks is not anti-safety. There are good reasons locks should not be mandatory, as there are better alternatives. If you have a pool and kids you need a pool fence. But I don't believe every floridian with a pool necessarily needs a pool fence.
As to AWB bans, you can visit my blog where I just posted my opinions on that, as well as magazine bans, and I won't take up space here.
3. Rick, please. I bought a generator a few years ago. Every hurricane season we make sure we have a case or 2 of bottled water, batteries for flash lights, a few boxes of cereal, gas for the generator, etc. Like most floridians. Then we go about our business and hurricanes are the farthest things from our minds. It's the same with guns.
As for Miguel, I also recall an incident in the news, some kind of robbery, where he said he would have retreated and not taken action...and if I recall correctly you said you would have like to have seen the bad guy encounter and armed Floridian and get blown away. So just because someone has big blog balls doesn't mean much.
Also, to me anti-government rhetoric means "overthrow the government." I am not anti-government. I am for small, unobtrusive government checked by an armed populace. Feinstein and her "kind" (as you so love to use the terms "kind" and "ilk") have explicitly stated that mandatory buy backs are an option they are considering. So given my principles, why wouldn't I be concerned?
Rick-Let's talk about "owning up" to our rhetoric:
Yours:
Four, once, just once, I would love to see the following happen and be fully recorded. Tough guy throws a punch. Victim calmly takes one step back, reaches under his shirt and pulls out his 9 mm. What happens next is up to the former tough guy. In most cases, I'm sure the battle would end right there as the former tough guy slinks off and out the door. In a minority of cases, the victim would get an excellent opportunity to apply his practice range shooting skills to a real life scenario. Center mass, anyone? Sort of like "Game Day" in the sports world. I would place my bets on the guy with the lead.
http://southfloridadailyblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/waiting-for-clint-eastwood-moment.html
And actually Miguel counsels restraint in comments and on his blog:
http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2012/03/12/because-they-need-to-learn-and-hopefully-not-the-hard-way/
Sure, you could delete this comment Rick, but you can't scrub the entire Internet.
Oh my, a gotcha moment. Except that valid self defense scenarios that I've commented on that actually include NOT SHOOTING have zero to do with my comments about paranoid gun owners or militancy or your claim to carry even though danger is the furthest thing from your mind. Speaking of which, I don't know how long you've lived in Florida but have you ever heard the saying "keeping an eye on the tropics?" Exactly. Your claim is, quite frankly, laughable.
But go ahead and try to explain to me how almost drawing down on a lawn man as he cuts your grass is like getting violently attacked and defending yourself with a firearm.
I read GFZ enough to know that Miquel is disingenuous at best about his approach to self defense. He alternates wildly between not using his firearm to defend himself (because you know how high those lawyer bills can be) and the above notated scenarios. It seems to always be a battle between testosterone and brains with him.
Anti-government can be used to describe any dislike of government, in my opinion, just like anti-teacher can be remarks deriding teachers as mooches and leeches...like you termed them over at GFZ.
Gunnies like yourself and those over at GFZ as well as the NRA firmly believe that Obama is "coming for their guns" and will defend them to the death. If that isn't anti-government, Waco territory, I don't know what is. Also, jack booted thugs.
I agree that no security is perfect and there will always be a threat in malls, stadiums, schools, public libraries or wherever else large numbers of people gather. But most Americans don't want the U.S. to become a police state. Like most right wingers, you want less government intrusion unless it suits your ideology. I get that. But, again, most people don't want the police or other government agents hovering everywhere they go just because a small segment of their fellow Americans feel as though that's just the price we pay for watching too many violent video games...or something.
There are other solutions, it's just that the NRA and those who support it will not let it happen.
.
JM,
The ATF collects by make, model, caliber - data about the guns and the type of crimes they're used in. So we could, for example, were ATF able to release this data, we could say we want to look at Bushmaster. How many of these Bushmasters have been used in how many crimes and where in the United States over the last, what, 10 years? Take your pick.
That data is available in the files of ATF, but it cannot release it. It is forbidden by law from releasing it due to the Tiahrt Amendment (a budget rider).
Now, any specific information about the people involves in the crimes can be easily stripped out. My question is would you support the releasing of ANONYMIZED information regarding guns involved in crimes?
anon
Anon-
Yes I would support that. The public forum can then argue/debate about what that data means and how it should be used or not. Transparency.
Rick-
1. I have no idea what you mean "keeping an eye on the tropics." Yes I follow named storms but I do not kvetch and become distracted from daily life nearly as much as others here because a) I understand statistics and b) I don't wait until the last minute to prepare. So I get on with life and on the rare occasions something bigger than Cat 1 comes our way, the switch flips and I respond. Self-defense is no different. Your notion that all CWP holders are walking around itching for a fight, or even thinking about fight is based on nothing but unsubstantiated demonization, or just one blog you read (Miguel's) who, to the best of my knowledge, has never harmed a fly.
2. As for Obama coming for guns, he explicitly stated in Romney debate III he would push for a renewed AWB, and his proxies are explicitly suggesting confiscations or forced "buy backs" as options. So the threat is not imaginary. But you are the paranoid wacko if you believe every gun owner is going to literally fight to the death, or presents any threat to you personally. You are the paranoid wacko if you think every gun owning household is a mini David Koresh compound. Do you honestly believe those things, or is utterly demonizing your political opponent just how you operate?
3. Repeating the words "police state" over and over is not an argument. How about vegas casinos? Crawling with more security than the white house but nobody even notices because it is discreet and professional. But everyone *knows* it is there even if they don't see it, and that is the deterrent. I don't like the fact the fact we need armed protectors of our schools any more than you do. But I also don't think schools need a public greeter like Walmart to give you smile and hug at the door and somehow that will turn away, interdict or prevent school attacks. We need armed guards, either uniformed or discreet, but their presence must be known even if unseen.
JM,
Awesome. Another question.
From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence.
But in 1996, some members of Congress attempted to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC. They failed to defund the center but the House removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury.
Would you support high-quality research into the underlying causes of gun violence?
anon
Anon-
That is a tougher question. Yes I would support "high-quality research into the underlying causes of gun violence," subject to debate about a) who will conduct the research, and b) cost.
Let's start with cost first, because we already know a lot, and I'm not sure what more research will tell us:
1. We already know what percent is suicide, and we know that reducing access to guns does not reduce suicide, it only reduces the mode.
2. We already know the cause of so-called "targeted motive" murder, e.g. husband kills wife's lover, crip kills blood, etc. Cause=People can be nasty and violent.
3. We already know that most if not all mass killers were mentally ill, and in last 5-7 years most were on some kind of psychotropic drug.
4. I believe we already have a lot of data on how people who have used guns in crimes acquired their guns.
5. We already know the accidental shooting rate.
So I'm not sure what causal nuances we need to tease out of the data we already have (video games?), or what additional data you think we need. So I am hesitant to say how much should or shouldn't be budgeted for the research. I guess it comes down to what hypothesis or premise is being tested or studied.
As to who does it, personally I would prefer something non-governmental, as this administration and its proxies will cause an actual or perceived taint on whatever data is gathered and conclusions made, which again would be a waste of money. Getting unbiased scientific work done these days in such a way that both sides of the political spectrum will respect it is exceedingly difficult.
I'm a John Lott fan myself, and if you dig deep, IMO there has been no credible challenge from the anti-gun lobby to his data or methodology, only personal attacks on him. Of course, I can be accused of bias so you have to do the heavy lifting yourself on him.
Okay, slowly....you made the statement that, "At this point, carrying a gun has become like tying my shoes, I do it without thinking and encountering danger is the farthest thing from my mind every day." Most South Floridians, not all, but most, make an effort to keep an "eye on the tropics" between June and October. Hurricanes are not the "farthest thing from their minds." Your statement that you carry without thinking and that protecting yourself is the farthest thing from your mind when you load up is ludicrous. But I agree with you that Miguel talks a big game and has never hurt a fly.
You need to spend a little more time at GFZ and other radical gun sites and thoroughly go through the comments like I do. While not all of them reference bomb-making and militant publications like GFZ does, the comments sections are full of folks who would like nothing than to exact retribution for Waco and other, what they see as, threats to their stock of firearms. That is the hardcore gun crowd today. And yes, like you, they will all throw up their hands and whine about being misunderstood, but it is what it is.
Yes, Vegas casinos are just like elementary schools with 3rd and 4th graders running around. Jeebus, JM. Are you effing serious?
Yes, of course you are. Because it's everything BUT the guns.
Wayne LaPierre says so, after all.
Also, being called a paranoid wacko by someone who is so damned frightened of walking out the front door and thinks that teachers are the slugs of America, I'll take that. That doesn't even sting.
.
1. We are getting nowhere with the hurricane analogy. I worry less about hurricanes than most Floridians, I *joke* that Home Depot has the local news stations on retainer to make people worry more than they should. Even during hurricane season, I tune out the panicked frenzy and catastrophizing so many S. Floridians fall into. If the storm is 2 days away and all the models point to us, Ok I care. Anything else don't bother me. I count myself as among the 20% who think that way, seems to me everyone else here's blood pressure goes up for every storm starting off the coast of Africa. It's the same for me with crime. I lock my doors, I carry my gun, if something happens I'll have a chance. But otherwise I have no fear to go about my daily business like everyone else. There are plenty of places I cannot go with my gun legally, and I never feel afraid, but definitely annoyed. If you're not getting it just drop it, we are wasting time.
2. I don't understand why you care what Miguel or I think or do, so long as we don't shoot anybody. The recent gun tragedies were not from the likes of Migel or me, rather, clinical whackjobs (to coin an insensitive term). You are chasing phantoms. The merits of arguments ought to be, in a rational world, wholly independent of what one person thinks the motives are. The logic or factual support either stands or it fails. There are plenty of laws I do agree with even though I do not agree with the specific motives of the people advancing them. I have no problem legalizing pot but not for the motives that seem typical for those advancing legalizing it, i.e. the desire to get high. I don't really care what their motives are when deciding whether a proposed policy makes good sense or not.
3. The point about Vegas casinos is that security does not have to be highly visible or imposing to be an effective deterrent.
Also, I would point out that your repetitive teachers jab is brazenly off-topic, so pursuant to the rules of the blog regarding comments, please refrain from that wasteful practice unless and until I comment on a post of yours regarding teachers.
It's truly fascinating to chat with you, JM.
You're for less government intrusion, but you want a a police officer in every school.
You're really not concerned with danger, but you wear a firearm every where you can.
Vegas casino security is an effective deterrent because it's not highly visible or imposing but in schools "we need armed guards, either uniformed or discreet, but their presence must be known even if unseen."
And finally, armed security guards work in schools (except at Columbine) because just look at how many mass murderers have been killed by armed civilians outside of the school.
C'mon, JM, lay another one on me.
.
You've now stooped to a level that would be no different from someone leveling at you, a progressive, "So you're against the death penalty but you're pro-choice?" I think you can do better than that, and owe your readers better than that.
Before we leave the subject of what you call "gun nut" culture, I would strongly suggest you take a look at "Shooters: Myths and Realities of America's Gun Cultures" by Abigail Kohn. Read the Amazon reviews and google her, then decide for yourself if $5 for a used copy off Amazon is worth it to you. I think the author (who began her study fully expecting to find camo wearing hillbillies) will resonate with you far better than I can. But hey, who needs facts when you have Piers Morgan?
This is classic. So now you're not only telling me how to run my blog, you're telling me what my political positions are. Amazing, JM. While you're at it, why don't you tell me what beer I like and how I like my eggs.
Later this week I'll have a post about concealed carry and how just about every person who carries out there actually has a reason why they carry. It's actually something they think about, unlike you. It will blow your mind, I'm sure.
.
"Later this week I'll have a post about concealed carry and how just about every person who carries out there actually has a reason why they carry. It's actually something they think about, unlike you. It will blow your mind, I'm sure."
I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic, or if you actually think that I carry for no particular reason, and have not been involved in gun clubs, competitions and other gun culture long enough to know why others carry. Like me, every person I know who carries does so for the same reason, lawful self defense. But I don't claim to have met every of the 1 million Floridians with CWP, so maybe you will surprise me.
Coincidentally I am working on a post for my own blog, a lengthy account of my transition from non-gun owner, to gun owner, to CWP holder, to competition shooter, etc. I'm sure you'll enjoy ignoring it or spinning it either way.
"Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided 'security,' a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America."
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.