Good news for those crazy people who claim they have a right to self-defense:  4 states, among last holdouts, eye open-carry gun laws

Four Southern states — Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas — are considering legislation that would allow people to carry handguns openly in a holster.

These generally Second Amendment-friendly states are among the last six holdouts against open carrying of guns. Openly carrying handguns is legal in most states, even those that ban concealed firearms. New York and Florida also bar openly carrying handguns.

The four other states that ban so-called open carry “are extremely gun-friendly. They understand the individual-rights aspect. Yet for whatever reason, the carry laws in these states are restrictive,” says John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org, which promotes gun rights.

Most states have strict laws governing concealed weapons. Illinois and Wisconsin ban carrying them entirely, according to the National Rifle Association. Concealing a weapon “was seen in the early days of our nation as something of an unwholesome act. People would bear arms openly,” Pierce says.

Says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which opposes open-carry laws: “We don’t want more people carrying guns either openly or concealed because the more guns you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get gun violence.”

We are in the current situation in regard to gun rights, which has devolved to the point where States decide which Constitution freedoms apply to their citizens (Second Amendment-friendly states!) because the gun control freaks were allowed to frame the argument.  Look at that last sentence again:

“We don’t want more people carrying guns either openly or concealed
because the more guns you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get gun violence.”

First of all, who is “we?”

Second, why do “your” wants trump my Constitutional right?

Third, knocking down your own strawman doesn’t count as a win.  The right to self-defense is an individual right to protect your own life–it has nothing to do with the fantasy “Gunfight At The O.K. Corral” scenario you created.

Fourth, assuming that the “situation” you refer to does exist, how does having no means to defend yourself help you?  Do you really think the bad guys are going to let you call 911?  And then helpfully wait until the police (who are the only people who should have guns, according to the controllers) arrive, before they kill you?

Fifth, if you truly believe that guns kill people, then by all means live by your belief, and die by it.  Just don’t demand that I die for it.

That statement would be laughable if it weren’t so lethal.  Imagine a similar argument relating to the First Amendment.  It might go something like this:

“We don”t want more people expressing their opinion either openly or in private because the more opinions you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get arguments that will lead to violence.”

Oh, wait.  That sounds a lot like the thinking behind the Fairness Doctrine, some of the press coverage of the McCain campaign, and a lot of people’s attitudes toward criticizing Obama, the stimulus bill, and generally anything the Democrats want to do .

Well, why not?  It works.  Because we let it.

Advertisements