Posted on 07/24/2004 7:01:58 AM PDT by Mulder
As horrifying as it is to contemplate, the next gunfight may not be at the O-K Corral; it might be in our own community. Shock and dismay are the emotions most often expressed at recent events either seen or read about in Reston of people walking our streets and dining in our restaurants with pistols on their hips. And it is perfectly legal.
In many of my columns I have talked about a rightward tilt of the Virginia General Assembly. In no area is that tilt to ultra-conservatism more evident than with gun control. The minimal laws that existed in the past at the state level have been stripped away, and local government has been denied the ability to pass gun control measures.
No one that I am aware of has ever proposed registration or limitation on ownership of guns in Virginia. The laws that have been repealed have been reasonable and would have in no way restricted gun ownership for hobbyists, collectors or hunters.
On July 31-Aug. 1, The Nation's Gun Show will be held at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly. The promoters expect 1,000 tables where guns will be sold. A promotional piece explains why the show is being held in Virginia: This show has been in the planning stages for several years. However, very restrictive laws regulating the purchase of handguns prevented us going to this great area. This year, legislation was passed in Virginia's General Assembly that repealed all waiting periods and permit requirements in Virginia. (Virginia now has total pre-emption.)
Apparently members of the Civil Defense League have decided to demonstrate their right by displaying their guns openly. Police have responded to calls about their presence but are powerless to do anything. How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?
There is no way to tell. Hopefully, the police will continue to respond to calls about gun-toting citizens, and hopefully they will not arrive too late. The fanatical gun lover will tell you that is exactly why everyone should carry a gunto defend himself. They may think it is too bad that the people who get shot are often innocent bystanders who unluckily find themselves in the area of gunfire.
None of our constitutional rights are absolute. Not being allowed to shout Fire! in a crowded theater is the most often cited limitation on free speech. And controls on your guns can be imposed that would protect the public but allow enthusiasts to collect guns and to hunt as a sport.
The U.S. Congress has let the ban on assault weapons expire. The pro-gun lobby will continue to push the limits. Reasonable people must make their views known as well. Let your outrage be heard by your congressional, state and local representatives. When reasonable voices are the strongest heard, we will return to reasonable gun control. That is what I continue to support. Let me know your views at kenplum@aol.com.
This question your article posed intrigued me considerably. "How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?"
The answer is, you don't know, and were the question posed correctly the answer would be the same. "How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?
Your statement that None of our constitutional rights are absolute could not be further from the constitutionally truth. Perhaps you are confusing rights with responsibilities. All rights carry responsibility. Shouting Fire! in a crowded theater is not a limitation of free speech; it is free speech. However, there are consequences in law if exercising your rights results in harm to either person or property.
With firearms in mind please explain this logic. We write laws because the people CANNOT be trusted and the people obey the laws because they CAN be trusted.
All states seem to have a few quirky laws.
But I'm much rather have a gun carried openly than a radar detector.
Well-rebutted!
That's for sure. PA has it's share of quirky laws too, although thanks to a review last decade, we are no longer required to have a horseman with a lantern ride ahead of our automobiles at night ;-)
You're shooting fish in a barrel.
Pro-gun control arguments never stand up to facts or reason.
Unfortunately, this hare-brained writer's comments on the valid purposes of firearms ownership sound like they're straight out of NRA glossies. I'm not a member of that pernicious organization, but they get my name from other lists and send me all sorts of garbage about the joys of duck hunting and target shooting for sport. Rarely a word about self-defense, and NEVER a word about keeping an out-of-control government at bay, And never a word about the dangers of registration schemes, since the risk of being deprived of one's fun little hobbies hardly constitutes danger.
LOL. He asked for it
I live in the Washington DC area and read both the Washington Post and the Washington Times daily. Both papers cover Virginia as well as DC and Maryland. I don't recall EVER seeing a story about any "innocent bystanders" in Virginia being hurt in a gunfight involving law abiding citizens exercising their right to carry arms. True, there are frequent stories about bystanders hit by gunfire, but they are invariably in the "gun free" Distict of Columbia and involve shootouts between rival criminals, usually gang members.
This gentleman is a propogandist, not a journalist.
bump to email the idiot
Well, if they're carrying openly, at least you know to keep an eye on them.
Why are these gun-grabber nuts suddenly all in a tizzy over OPEN carry? DO they think that somehow the few potential murderous wackos out there were less dangerous when they were carrying CONCEALED? And needless to say, that little group is continuing to carry concealed -- it's hardly the open-carriers that anyone needs to be worrying about.
Courtesy of http://www.a-human-right.com/
Sent
Welcome from southern Michigan, Reb.
LOL! Except that the jawbone of a democrat never stops moving.
Del. Kenneth R. Ken Plum (D-36th)
This article has KKKlintoon on it.
For several years, I think, my membership included a monthly publication entitled "American Guardian" which was dedicated to self-defense. This was discontinued in favor of a monthly entitled "America's First Freedom", which focusses mainly on the political issues associated with the Second Amendment. But I do see self-defense articles also.
Perhaps if you rejoined, they might find reason to begin "American Guardian" again. Other options have included "American Hunter" and "American Rifleman".
Since my wife is also a member, we receive two of the publications. What a deal!
He asked for feedback (must be into pain and suffering). If you do reply, take time to offer your rebuttal at the bottom of the article. So far there's only three; mine is pending.
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.