You don't really need to go any further than that, really.
Posted on 12/03/2011 5:24:19 AM PST by marktwain
The Fayetteville Observer complains today that the state legislature is going to take away the city’s power to ban guns in parks: “This isn’t a gun issue. Our parks are not high-crime areas. We will have guns in Festival Park and Mazarick Park and most others not because the Second Amendment or some jurist says we must, but because state lawmakers surrounded by serious problems once again ran off to indulge in political posturing.” I can’t count the number of times I have heard a variation on that theme: “Well why would you need a gun in …” a park, a mall, a church, a school, yadda, yadda, yadda, from people who assure me that it isn’t a Second Amendment issue (shades of the classic “I’m not prejudiced, I have lots of black friends”). Most of them can’t explain just why exactly relegating guns to the back of the bus is not a civil rights issue, but we’ll let that pass for the now…
The matter at hand is the idea that posting a sign or passing a law will do anything except to disarm all the people who aren’t going to commit a crime. Which is exactly what these laws do. The run of the mill permit holder will not carry in a prohibited zone, but no sign is going to stop a predator.
So just who does a “No Guns” sign protect? Will it protect anyone from an armed mugger or rapist? Don’t be silly, they don’t care about legal niceties. Will it protect you from some nut-job on a mission to shoot as many people as possible before he blows his own brains out? No, he wants a target rich environment full of disarmed prey, the better to ensure a high body-count.
So just who do those signs protect us from? The only people “No Guns” signs protect you from are people who are law-abiding enough that they will obey the sign, but psychotic enough that they would whip out a gun and shoot someone who cut in front of them in the coffee queue. And they also have to be rational enough such that the walk to their car (or drive home) to retrieve their weapon before shooting the bastard takes enough time for them to change their mind about committing murder. Doesn’t sound like very many people would fit that description.
The fact of the matter is, the Tucson shooting aside, there has never been a mass casualty shooting that was not in a supposed “gun-free” zone. Columbine? Virginia Tech? Pearl High School? Westroads Mall? Tacoma Mall? Trolley Square Mall? New Life Church? Living Church of God? Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church? Various Post Office shootings over the years? All of these events, all of them, took place in nominally ‘gun-free’ zones.
So is Fayetteville so sure their parks are safe that they are willing to disarm the law-abiding? Maybe the city would like to pass a law stating that anyone who’s been disarmed by a no guns law is due full recompense for medical bills, lost wages, loss of consortium, pain, suffering and emotional distress. They can limit the award amount to $10 million, or the cash equivalent of 5800 Troy ounces of gold, whichever is highest.
If you aren’t willing to put your money where your mouth is then shut your pie-hole and keep your laws off my guns.
Gun free zones are just another incremental way to move toward total control. The idea is simple: make an example of a place where guns are not allowed, with no rational reason other than “we do not tolerated armed citizens *here*” . This lends legitimacy to the thought that citizens with guns are a bad thing, and the idea that more such zones should be created and encouraged. Havn’t we all heard a variant of “If we do not allow guns in (school, legislature, church) then we certainly should not allow them in (school, legislature, church, parking lot, mall, store, DC.)
Gun free zones are designed to grow and spread, like small pox.
The other purpose of gun free zones is to make carrying a gun as uncomfortable, legaly dangerous, and impractical as possible. Look at any map that shows the impact of the insane “Gun Free School Zone” act of 1996. In any urban area, it becomes impossible to conduct business in a normal manner while carrying a gun that is not licensed in that state, without breaking the law.
Neither of these clear purposes is discussed openly by those who detest free citizens and fear the power that they gain from carrying guns, and the independent mindset that it fosters.
The left is based on lies, derives its power from lies, and cannot exist when its lies are exposed.
Control of the masses and consolidation of power are their main concerns. No one can convince me that my safety is enhanced by dis-arming me at a mall, city park, college campus or local bank.
These people want to bring the era of the armed citizen to an end, with promises of government sponsored (and enforced) utopia. I'm not buying what they are selling.
You don't really need to go any further than that, really.
I spent a while last night doing a refresher course with my wife to keep her current in the operation of several of our firearms. She carries a old Browning Belgique .32 or a Taurus 9MM Slim, but really likes the AK because of the way it inspires a sense of safety with the 30 round mag and the solid "kachink" when chambering a round. I'd hate to try to storm our place with her in defense mode...
.
It’s rarely about guns; it’s always about control. If the population starts walking around feeling competent, capable and sovereign they’ll be that much harder to herd
Gun Free Zones, aka Killing fields........I’ve been saying it for years......can’t seem to get any of the powers that be to grasp that simple concept.
Too bad. The law is in effect right now, as of December 1st. They have no jurisdiction to pass such an ordinance. Period.
Here is the section of law they are complaining about:
"§ 14-415.23. Statewide uniformity. It is the intent of the General Assembly to prescribe a uniform system for the regulation of legally carrying a concealed handgun. To insure uniformity, no political subdivisions, boards, or agencies of the State nor any county, city, municipality, municipal corporation, town, township, village, nor any department or agency thereof, may enact ordinances, rules, or regulations concerning legally carrying a concealed handgun... A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to prohibit, by posting, the carrying of a concealed handgun on municipal and county recreational facilities , ... (it) includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility."
Truly AWESOME spot-on post!!!
Thanks! I appreciate all the help that I can get.
The ugly truth is that gun free zones are not about irrational dreams of safety. They certainly are about power and control. The irrational spouting about safety is just a way to get emotional support from those who don’t really think about the issue.
Gun free zones are just another incremental way to move toward total control. The idea is simple: make an example of a place where guns are not allowed, with no rational reason other than “we do not tolerated armed citizens *here*”. This lends legitimacy to the thought that citizens with guns are a bad thing, and the idea that more such zones should be created and encouraged. Haven’t we all heard a variant of “If we do not allow guns in (school, legislature, church) then we certainly should not allow them in (school, legislature, church, parking lot, mall, store, DC.)?
Gun free zones are designed to grow and spread, like small pox.
The other purpose of gun free zones is to make carrying a gun as uncomfortable, legally dangerous, and impractical as possible. Look at any map that shows the impact of the insane “Gun Free School Zone” act of 1996. In any urban area, it becomes impossible to conduct business in a normal manner while carrying a gun that is not licensed in that state, without breaking the law.
Neither of these clear purposes is discussed openly by those who detest free citizens and fear the power that they gain from carrying guns, and the independent mindset that it fosters.
The left is based on lies, derives its power from lies, and cannot exist when its lies are exposed.
Excellent points.
Self-defense denial zones are akin to the ban on certain weaponry based primarily on their appearance [The Scary-Looking weapons ban – AWB]
Again, it’s a case where the Socialists in the Nation’s capitol and elsewhere wanting to marginalize and divide the gun owning community.
That was a great spot!
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.
