Defending the right to bear arms
Posted in Power to the People by R Lee Wrights on September 5th, 2007 by Mike Ruff
I carry openly. I do this for political reasons-the same reason I make it a point to sit in the smoking section at restaurants when I go out to eat by myself, even though I don’t smoke. But that’s another story. I carry openly, precisely because it invites comment (it shouldn’t, but such is the sad state of our society). Some of the comments are good, a few are bad, and many more merely serve educational purposes.
An example of the good: I was going to the store to do some grocery shopping. A local Volunteer Fire Department was selling raffle tickets to raise funds. One of the Firefighters said: “That man’s carrying-I don’t even have to ask-I know he’s gonna buy a ticket!” Hey, you have to admire his salesmanship. But he hit on a truth about gun owners-we are usually nice guys, generous, just the salt of the Earth. And definitely helped our image in the minds of the bystanders. My response? “Y’all are raising money for a Volunteer Fire Department? You’re right-I’ll donate to that cause!”
An example of the educational: Same place and time as above. While I was filling out my new raffle tickets, a woman asked me if I was a police officer. I said, “No ma’am, I’m a Libertarian.” She asked me what that was. Sadly, I was in a hurry (I was buying supplies for the County Libertarian Convention which was being held later that day) so I had to give her a quick answer. I told her (my apologies and thanks to L. Neil Smith) “We’re sort of like the ACLU, but with guns.” I did explain to her that we were a pro-freedom alternative to the Democrats and Republicans, and that we were in favor of volunteer organizations and private companies performing as many functions as possible, and that was why people such as myself made it a point to support organizations like the Volunteer Fire Department. She seemed to favor that idea.
An example of the bad: I was looking for a gift for my niece’s 1st birthday. I went to Toys R Us. I checked their doors for a sign saying that firearms were not permitted, as I always do-and no sign. I went in, I looked around. No one seemed to be recoiling in fear-most folks didn’t even give me a second glance. After I had been there for perhaps 20 minutes, a sales person comes along and asks me if I need any help. I told him what I was looking for. He asked if I was a police officer. I said: “No, I’m a Libertarian.” He didn’t know what that was, but he informed me that Toys R Us has a policy against firearms. I said that I was not aware of that, as they were not posted. I politely handed him a Grass Roots North Carolina “Don’t Buy” card (a picture of a pistol in the crossed circle = a dollar sign in a crossed circle, with an explanation that we would respect their wishes and not patronize their business if they didn’t want anyone to carry firearms there). I said, “Have a nice day” and turned to leave. He told me I didn’t have to go right away, that he was telling me for future reference. I replied that that was quite all right, I would respect their policy, and I wouldn’t want to put them in the position of accepting money from someone they were opposed to. Then I bought my niece’s gift at a store that respected my right to carry.
Then there are the folks who say they are ok with gun ownership, but don’t see the need to carry everywhere-and seem to imply that I must be some sort of wacko for doing so. Of course, I suspect that if they aren’t comfortable with those who carry, then they most likely aren’t really comfortable with ownership either. They probably just hope to avoid an argument about ownership, by attempting to soften the argument and make it about carrying rather than ownership.
So I have constructed the following argument for use with these folks:
Q. Why do you carry that gun? Are you worried that you’re going to be attacked or something? Do you think someone is out to get you? (With the obvious implication that if you are carrying, then you must be some sort of paranoid nutball, and maybe even a coward)
A. Well, see if you can follow my reasoning. Are there criminals out there who might attack a person?
Q. Well, yes, of course. But that’s what the police are for.
A. Ok, fine, the police. Do you see a police officer accompanying me everywhere I go?
Q. No, of course not. That’s stupid.
A. I agree. The police have much better things to do than act as my personal bodyguards. And I notice they don’t keep an eye on you either.
Q. Silence
A. The cops carry guns, right?
Q. Of course!
A. So I take it you believe that guns are of use in self-defense for the police, and in the bringing to justice of the criminals?
Q. Yes…
A. So are cops supermen? Are they smarter and stronger and more skilled and have more powers than the rest of us? Or are they just normal, mortal men like the rest of us?
Q. (Probably pretty annoyed by now) No, they’re regular people.
A. So really, there’s nothing a cop can do with a gun that I cannot.
Q. I guess.
A. So then, if you agree that there are criminals who can potentially victimize anyone; and if you agree that police can use guns in defending themselves and others against these criminals; and if you agree that a police officer can do nothing with a gun that other mortals cannot potentially do; then you must agree that it makes no sense to say that regular people shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns too. Am I correct so far?
Q. I guess…
A. So then, you’re ok with people owning guns, even if they aren’t police?
Q. Sure.
A. Ok. So do you agree that there is the possibility I could need a gun to defend myself or others?
Q. Yes, I guess so.
A. OK. So if I might need one in such a situation, when will I need it?
Q. What?
A. You’ve agreed that there is the possibility that I might have need for a gun. When? When can I anticipate the attack of a criminal? Will he call and make an appointment to attack me? Or to inform me that he will be attacking you on a certain date or time?
Q. No! Obviously not.
A. So then, how can I be sure that I do have the gun when I need it? And how can I be sure that no one gets hold of my gun-for example a child or a criminal-who might injure themselves or others with it (whether intentionally or not)? The only way I can be sure to have it when I need it, and be sure that no one has it who shouldn’t, is to make sure I have it in my possession at all times. So I carry for my safety as well as that of everyone else.
Q. Now obviously devastated by my powerful argument, yet quickly converting to a gun rights activist themselves
Ok, so maybe that last is just a fantasy on my part. Obviously the whole argument will probably have little effect on those who hold irrational beliefs regarding weapons (i.e. the hoplophobes). But always remember that others generally overhear these discussions, and this may be the very thing that brings them off the fence and into our camp. And demonstrating that WE are the logical and rational ones in this fight can’t hurt.
“‘Ignorantque datos, ne quisquam serviat, enses.’ And they are ignorant that the purpose of the sword is to save every man from slavery.”
- Lucanus (A.D. 39-65), De Bello Civili
"gunner" said,
September 9, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
I once had a conversation with a Vermont State trooper along those lines, when he asked why I was carrying a pistol. My reply was “for the same reason you do, because if I am attacked by a criminal you won’t be there, and I’ll be on my own to protect my life.” Of course in Vermont he had no right to even ask his question officially as Vermont does not issue or require “pistol permits” to its law abiding citizens so the conversation ended right there. A few years later I took a job as an armoured truck guard which required an “armed courier” license but that was a trade license and did not affect my right to carry in my off duty life.
“gunner”
ben said,
January 15, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
but, if we removed the dangerous weaponry from the equation, wouldn’t that give us a safer society simply because there aren’t as many criminals with easy access to firearms? I live in australia, a place where gun laws are quite tight and we can’t simply purchase weapons like you can in many US states. Our murder rate due to firearms (and any other weapon) is quite low, lower than the US. wouldn’t you say this is compelling evidence for gun control?
B.C. said,
February 29, 2008 @ 9:04 am
The point of the 2nd Amendment isn’t self defense. It’s to protect against a tyrannical government. While the author of this post makes many valid points about how logical and reasonable it is to carry, he doesn’t really do so in the context of defending the 2nd Amendment’s primary intention. The 2nd Amendment’s guarantee has secondary benefits (defense against criminals and animals who are a perceived or actual threat to our safety), but its primary purpose is for defense against a government which has become tyrannical in its rule.
History before and after the American Revolution has proven beyond a doubt that whenever a government wants to take away other rights from its citizens, it first starts by disarming them. Living in a country which has already disarmed its citizens, you should consider the gravity of your situation. Just as a loyal dog of many years may suddenly turn on its owner in a rabid fit, so a government of men which have gotten a whiff of power may turn on their people, making the populace servants rather than masters. You live in freedom at the pleasure of your government rather than your government governing at the pleasure of its citizens. Such a situation is the reverse of what it ought to be.
Access to guns insures against a government which does not know its place nor where its power is derived, which is serving those governed and at their consent.
Rick A Hyatt said,
June 26, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
OH, THIS IS NOTHING! Next Step? Will be when I am subpeona’d for my testimony on my past 30+ years as an US Army “Manchurian Candidate Study” subject.
(Go to http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com to see just how immersed I AM in this espionage business - Hope you have Piclens, for I’ve got PHOTOS of past major spies I have known long-term along this line you won’t believe!)
That is to say, my own mission as a “Sleeper,” totally controlled, of course, by the FBI and (Double-Blind, unknowingly) “Social(ist) Services,” was to “Act up” (Utilizing special psychological and physical attributes such as clinical hypnosis and Celiac’s Disease, which causes reversible neopathy) to the degree that I became “One of those who shouldn’t own a gun… and thusly influence on-going anti-gun legislation. I was successful in helping Maui Waiver Form 2036 (Allowing the corrupt politicians to search a gun applicant’s ENTIRE LIFE’S medical, sexual etc. files) and then exploit same for political purposes on Maui. Coming then here to Wyoming, hearing of my “Reputation” they specially whipped up our Concealed Carry Permit Restriction, for such “ a person like me… Then, when I passed the NCIC, etc., and got a Florida Permit, valid here, they passed a special law - JUST FOR ME- ILLEGAL AS HELL - Such that it could not be used here, as examples.
My “Behavioral Programming?” To act unnaturally conservative, pro-Constitutional, openly Patriotic, and to be vocal about it. Be “Dumbed Down” from the Celiac’s by eating bread and drinking beer. Couldn’t have made a better target and/or “Dummy” for the Liberals to use as an “Example.”
Now… Since so many anti-gun laws are based on the acts of the Columbine, Post Office, Mall otherwise-untraceable (By the APA, anyway) “Sleepers” (As myself), then how can ANY OF THOSE LAWS BE VALID AT ALL?
“Telling the truth during times of universal deceit will be a revolutionary act.” George Orwell, “1984″
jared said,
January 5, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Ben: I personally don’t know what its like in wherever you live but I know in the USA criminals mostly have or will get illegal guns anyway leaving the law abiding citizen defenceless so the way I see it is that If you outlaw guns only the outlaws have guns