National Carry AcademyA Gun Free Society: Permit Holders and Gun Owners
October 5, 2015
A Gun Free Society: Permit Holders and Gun Owners
Over the past week, renewed calls for gun-confiscation and a “gun-free society” have reared their ugly head.
• Prohibition.
• Mass buyback.
• A gun-free society.
• Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.
This statement is the start of an opinion article written by the Washington Post (although it could easily have been statements from Hitler, Stalin, and China in the early parts of the 20th century.) Before I get too far, I understand that this is simply a opinion piece, but unfortunately many Americans will look at this claim and arrive at some level of validity.
Our nation has seen numerous shooting situations at locations around the country that one very common theme. That is that they are “gun free zones.”
The gun control debate has wide reaching implications for all permit holders and law abiding citizens. First, the regulations and change that are on the table will constrict law abiding citizens from purchasing, owning, and utilizing firearms for self defense. Second, it opens a backdoor to re-writing the entire Constitution and the bill of rights. Finally, it has the capability to turn good, everyday American’s into criminals overnight.
The argument is that we are the only first world, modernized country to have this level of firearm violence. That we should model our society after European nations that have lower level of gun homicides and suicides. On the surface, this claim gives people a warm fuzzy feeling that projects a false sense of security. “If we just ban guns, no one will use them to commit crimes.”
The point about this conversation that irks me the most is the fact that American citizens want to model our government after European nations. Didn’t we, as a collective group of free thinking, freedom loving people come to this country to escape the constrictive nature of the European governments in question? Didn’t our forefathers model our constitution to ensure that we did not fall prey to a tyrannical government like those very same European countries?
The Constitution was designed from the ground up to ensure that the people’s voices were heard and that no branch of the government had the ability to grab power and pass regulations and statues that would restrict the free people of the union. Our country was founded on the principle of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We came together, repelled a foreign superpower, and gained our independence once and for all while swearing to never become the countries that we left.
My right to bear arms for personal protection and the ability to repel an oppressive government was never intended to ensure that I can go shoot Bambi on the weekend. The Second Amendment was written to protect against what is happening right now, a federal overreach and breach of trust between the people of the government and the people of the nation. There is now a distinction between the two. Rather than a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we have a government that is solely fixated on passing their agenda and setting themselves up for reelection.
Banning firearms will do three things. First, it will turn millions of Americans into felons overnight because I can assure you that my firearms are not going to be turned over voluntarily. Second, it will enable criminals to have free reign over disarmed citizens (check out drug laws and see how effective a total ban on something is.) Finally, it will limit American’s ability to keep their government in check and negate the nature of accountability that our nation was founded upon.
As long as we have limitations on where law abiding citizens can exercise their right to self defense, we will have criminals that exploit those limitations. As I wrote about in an article last week, roughly 92% of “mass shootings” occur in “gun-free” zones. Why are we blaming the firearms? Why aren’t we blaming the criminal?
When a terrorist tried to bring a shoe bomb onto a plane after 9/11 years ago, we didn’t ban shoes on airplanes (although we did have to take them off for a bit.) Last time I check, airplanes are bomb free zones. Instead, we blamed the psychotic terrorist that was hell bent on killing Americans.
When a dentist shot Cecil the lion, American’s cried out for him to be prosecuted. People didn’t blame the gun, they blamed the man (I am in no way insinuating that what he did was right or wrong, simply pointing out the discrepancies in blame.)
Why, whenever there is a shooting in America, do we blame the gun rather than the man? If we ban all firearms, we are no better than the same people that we all came to this country to escape from. We are no different than the citizens of Germany that were pulled into WW2 and suffered through a mass genocide. We are no different than the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, Rwanda, and many others.
This country needs to evaluate and understand that with increased freedom, unfortunate events will happen. Is there ways to reduce these events? Absolutely. Is the answer to ban firearms and constrict our citizens abilities to defend themselves? Absolutely not. If we let our freedoms become bargaining chips, we give away the fundamental right of a self governing people.
The answer is simple, unfortunately it is not what many on the other side of the rope want to hear. We need to realize that the Constitution did not grant us the right to self defense, it reinforced it. There is a reason that the Constitution referred to the rights within as “unalienable.” Our forefathers did not give us the right to bear arms and self defense. It did not give us the right to free speech and freedom of religion. It reinforced that those rights are “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” That these rights we hold so dear are not granted by the government, rather they are nature laws that transcend any government.
I beg people to continue to hold these rights not as a gift from the government, rather a promise from the government that they will not limit what is naturally given to all humans, American or not.
A Gun Free Society: Permit Holders and Gun Owners
October 5, 2015
A Gun Free Society: Permit Holders and Gun Owners
Over the past week, renewed calls for gun-confiscation and a “gun-free society” have reared their ugly head.
• Prohibition.
• Mass buyback.
• A gun-free society.
• Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.
This statement is the start of an opinion article written by the Washington Post (although it could easily have been statements from Hitler, Stalin, and China in the early parts of the 20th century.) Before I get too far, I understand that this is simply a opinion piece, but unfortunately many Americans will look at this claim and arrive at some level of validity.
Our nation has seen numerous shooting situations at locations around the country that one very common theme. That is that they are “gun free zones.”
The gun control debate has wide reaching implications for all permit holders and law abiding citizens. First, the regulations and change that are on the table will constrict law abiding citizens from purchasing, owning, and utilizing firearms for self defense. Second, it opens a backdoor to re-writing the entire Constitution and the bill of rights. Finally, it has the capability to turn good, everyday American’s into criminals overnight.
The argument is that we are the only first world, modernized country to have this level of firearm violence. That we should model our society after European nations that have lower level of gun homicides and suicides. On the surface, this claim gives people a warm fuzzy feeling that projects a false sense of security. “If we just ban guns, no one will use them to commit crimes.”
The point about this conversation that irks me the most is the fact that American citizens want to model our government after European nations. Didn’t we, as a collective group of free thinking, freedom loving people come to this country to escape the constrictive nature of the European governments in question? Didn’t our forefathers model our constitution to ensure that we did not fall prey to a tyrannical government like those very same European countries?
The Constitution was designed from the ground up to ensure that the people’s voices were heard and that no branch of the government had the ability to grab power and pass regulations and statues that would restrict the free people of the union. Our country was founded on the principle of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We came together, repelled a foreign superpower, and gained our independence once and for all while swearing to never become the countries that we left.
My right to bear arms for personal protection and the ability to repel an oppressive government was never intended to ensure that I can go shoot Bambi on the weekend. The Second Amendment was written to protect against what is happening right now, a federal overreach and breach of trust between the people of the government and the people of the nation. There is now a distinction between the two. Rather than a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we have a government that is solely fixated on passing their agenda and setting themselves up for reelection.
Banning firearms will do three things. First, it will turn millions of Americans into felons overnight because I can assure you that my firearms are not going to be turned over voluntarily. Second, it will enable criminals to have free reign over disarmed citizens (check out drug laws and see how effective a total ban on something is.) Finally, it will limit American’s ability to keep their government in check and negate the nature of accountability that our nation was founded upon.
As long as we have limitations on where law abiding citizens can exercise their right to self defense, we will have criminals that exploit those limitations. As I wrote about in an article last week, roughly 92% of “mass shootings” occur in “gun-free” zones. Why are we blaming the firearms? Why aren’t we blaming the criminal?
When a terrorist tried to bring a shoe bomb onto a plane after 9/11 years ago, we didn’t ban shoes on airplanes (although we did have to take them off for a bit.) Last time I check, airplanes are bomb free zones. Instead, we blamed the psychotic terrorist that was hell bent on killing Americans.
When a dentist shot Cecil the lion, American’s cried out for him to be prosecuted. People didn’t blame the gun, they blamed the man (I am in no way insinuating that what he did was right or wrong, simply pointing out the discrepancies in blame.)
Why, whenever there is a shooting in America, do we blame the gun rather than the man? If we ban all firearms, we are no better than the same people that we all came to this country to escape from. We are no different than the citizens of Germany that were pulled into WW2 and suffered through a mass genocide. We are no different than the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, Rwanda, and many others.
This country needs to evaluate and understand that with increased freedom, unfortunate events will happen. Is there ways to reduce these events? Absolutely. Is the answer to ban firearms and constrict our citizens abilities to defend themselves? Absolutely not. If we let our freedoms become bargaining chips, we give away the fundamental right of a self governing people.
The answer is simple, unfortunately it is not what many on the other side of the rope want to hear. We need to realize that the Constitution did not grant us the right to self defense, it reinforced it. There is a reason that the Constitution referred to the rights within as “unalienable.” Our forefathers did not give us the right to bear arms and self defense. It did not give us the right to free speech and freedom of religion. It reinforced that those rights are “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” That these rights we hold so dear are not granted by the government, rather they are nature laws that transcend any government.
I beg people to continue to hold these rights not as a gift from the government, rather a promise from the government that they will not limit what is naturally given to all humans, American or not.