Skip to comments.Gun Rights: The muddle created by concealed carry laws and those that write about them
Posted on 07/13/2012 6:09:14 PM PDT by TurboZamboni
CHICAGO, July 10, 2012 That is how Larry Oakes, a reporter for the Star-Tribune, describes Minnesotan Pat Cannon. Cannon is one of over 100,000 persons in Minnesota who has a concealed carry weapon permit.
Oakes describes this as acquired the power to kill. Another lovely literary chestnut in describing Cannon and others who choose to carry is, people who have taken on the means to use deadly force if they decide it's necessary.
Who decides whether deadly, or any other force is necessary? A more accurate statement would be, if they decide it is justified.
There is a distinct difference and stark contrast between what is necessary and what is legally justified.
Oakes' article on Minnesotas concealed carry law makes the writer's point of view loud and clear. He is not in favor of the law or the "large numbers," one in forty Minnesotans, who take advantage of it.
As far as I know, none of those persons are described as paranoid, bark-chewing, raving lunatics wearing camouflage or ninja outfits. None are described as seeing violent armed criminals around every corner.
They are described as ordinary, bland, middle-aged people. This simple fact muddles whatever point Oakes was trying to make.
(Excerpt) Read more at c.washingtontimes.com ...
150-month term in Cottonwood bus crash (MN Illegal)
Judge sets $100K bail in fatal Harding High crash
Sounds real dramatic and all but as a newsflash for him humans have the power to kill without being armed. Has he ever heard about all the people that are strangled? Not to mention all the items that have been used to kill people with over the ages and even today that have nothing to do with firearms...what a loon.
The "distinct difference" can be compared with "the breaking point" (of about anything) - once you reach it, it's too late to do anything else. The guy that has you in fear for your life may not have really intended to kill you, which means that killing him was "not necessary". On the flip side, if you give him the "benefit of the doubt" and he does intend to kill you, then you wasted the one opportunity you had to defend yourself.
More importantly Hillary with obamas blessing is signing us on to the international UN gun ban treaty on the 27th of this month without congress under the false pretence of controlling arms sales between countries but really overriding our right to own fire arms. If we lose this FIGHT...........CHECKMATE THEY WIN. Civilian gun ownership is a threat to thier existance and thier utopian society
If miscreants wouldn't assault, rob or rape with no regard to the well-being of people who just want to be left alone, one wouldn't be put in this position. My mother was purse-snatched and beaten in the process three times. She and my sister had their car stolen and the thief tried to run them over with the car. Being armed would have made them feel safer, and the outcome of each of these events would have kept them from harm. It is our right to even the playing field against criminals. That includes the use of deadly force.
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.