In the past few days or so the Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, announced her support for legislation that would allow both open and concealed carry in South Carolina without requiring a permit for either. This is called "Constitutional Carry," and is something that is already being considered in several other states. Needless to say, the social media debate on this topic is in full swing, and of course being the ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment as I am, I'm involved in it. One of my friends on Facebook made an initial post on it in which she said she thought it was a bad idea and called it a "freeway to tragedy." She also said, "As an instructor and educated gun carrier, I can not imagine our public being told they do not need the education. We see 'experienced' shooters with absolutely NO safety or law knowledge until they come to our class. The only reason they do is they are forced. I support all gun rights but this will be a HUGE mistake." Here's what I said about it all:
"First, let me say that I am a huge believer in training in the use of firearms. I believe that anyone who chooses to carry a firearm for self-defense should be properly and adequately trained in its use, for their own safety if for no other reason.
"Having said that, let me say this: I am a fanatical supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and am a firm believer in the LITERAL definition of the amendment. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that - NO infringements, NO limitations, NO government requirements of ANY KIND. PERIOD. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say "shall not be infringed except for mandatory training," just as it doesn't say "shall not be infringed except for background checks." As has already been said, using the logic of requiring a state-approved training course before you can exercise your Constitutional right is the same kind of logic used to fight against concealed carry, and in my humble opinion flies in the face of and violates the 2nd Amendment. I see ANY kind of government requirement at any level of government as an infringement upon our Constitutional rights. I agree with Governor Haley on this one and will support her in any way I can."
There were two immediate comments to my remarks that I wish to address here, as my reply is going to be a tad more lengthy than Facebook will allow. I can also say what I want here without the liberal censors at Facebook censoring me out. So here's the first comment:
"'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' It seems some people know 4 of the words very well in the 2nd amendment. Education is something alot of people don't have very much of."
My immediate reply to him was, "What's your point, John? Or is there one?"
The second comment was this:
"the (sic) constitution was written in a time of musket balls and not fully automated weapons.... Im all for gun rights too, but this bill will get ppl killed, we are already pretty high on homicides, cdv, and deaths caused by cdv, yet last in the nation in education. We have to take things like that into consideration. There is nothing our state needs more than a bunch of untrained trigger happy morons."
My initial comment to Jessica was, "So, Jessica, using that straing of logic, anything except quill and paper should be unconstitutional since that was all they had when the Constitution was written." I followed that up with another comment that said I had a lot more to say to both John and Jessica but would save it for later when I wasn't at work and had access to a real keyboard instead of the smartphone I was using. Jessica made the following reply:
"no, (sic) but of course you assume that is the same logic! I'm simply stating, I AM taking into consideration, people, mental illness, and weaponry has advanced far more than anyone who wrote the constitution could have ever imagined, and quite frankly some ppl do NOT need to be allowed to carry PERIOD. at all! That is my opinion and you are very welcome to disagree and quite frankly say what you want about it. It is my opinion and I will hold that strongly! Nikki Haley has done nothing for our state! We have only gotten worse on the things that need drastic improvement. IE education. But that doesn't matter, as long as ppl can carry their guns every where right. Priorities. I'm pro gun. I have guns and I carry them. But there are other things our fine governor could promote before making sure we remain a dangerous state."
Well, now that I'm home and have access to a decent keyboard, here's my reply to all three comments made in regards to my original post.
John has since answered my question thusly: "Ray my point is we the people who believe in the Constitution and live by it are the "Well regulated militia" Law abiding people need the education and training associated with carrying a firearm. It is just plain common sence (sic)...is there a way that can happen and be accounted for that would be in the best interest for all, other than a regulatory commission overseen by SLED?" (For those of you who don't live in SC, SLED stands for South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.)
Well, John, it's like this: I agree with what you said 100%. And no, I don't think there's a way this training can happen as a requirement without violating the 2nd Amendment. And SLED doesn't make the laws, they just enforce them.
To Jessica: In regards to your first comment, the line of "logic" that says the Constitution doesn't apply to automatic weapons because they didn't exist when the Constitution was written is anything but logical. It's borderline moronic, to be honest, and shows a depth of lack of understanding on the part of the person uttering it to be nothing short of stupendous. Like I said, using that line of thought the First Amendment wouldn't apply to anything written on a typewriter or a computer because they didn't exist when the Constitution was written. And don't say it's not the same thing because it most certainly is. There's absolutely no difference between the two just because one of the amendments is addressing guns.
As for your statement about the state already being high on homicides and the last thing our state needing is a bunch of untrained trigger happy morons, let me ask you this: who do you think is doing all the shooting in our state now? The law-abiding, responsible, mature citizens who follow the law and obtain the required permits, or the thugs, punks, thieves, and assholes who steal guns or get them on the black market and then use them to commit crimes? How can you even consider comparing the two groups to one another with any shred of decency or hope of being taken seriously? And how can you possibly think that this bill will get people killed any more or any faster than they're already getting killed by said thugs, punks, thieves and assholes already mentioned? Are you really that naive? If so, I suggest you cancel your subscription to "The State" newspaper, stop watching CNN, and broaden your horizons just a tad. What this bill will do is allow people to carry the means to defend themselves as the 2nd Amendment originally intended, nothing more and nothing less.
In regards to your second comment, I would not be so bold as to state what someone 200+ years ago thought would or would not exist in this day and age. The technology certainly wasn't there, but the imagination was. Besides, when you get right down to it, that's irrelevant as the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights took great care to construct a document that would apply just as strongly now in 2014 as it did in 1787 when it was ratified, and I think they did a damned fine job of it. We in this day and age are the ones who took a remarkably simple document and screwed it up with over-interpretation, misinterpretation, extrapolation, and intentional disinterpretation. Sure, there's such a thing as mental illness, just as I'm sure that there was in 1787 as well, but neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights addresses that for one reason - the mentally ill have the same Constitutional rights as we do, like it or not. Yeah, that's gonna be a thorny problem for someone to handle later on down the road, so I'll leave that for people with more intelligence than me to figure out. Right now I'll just tell you that you can't use that as an excuse to talk bad about the proposed bill - not in my eyes, anyhow.
You also stated that "some ppl (sic) do NOT need to be allowed to carry PERIOD." If you're talking about convicted felons, I agree with you wholeheartedly; if you're not, then just who are you talking about? And how do you propose to decide who can be "allowed" to carry and who can't, and how are you going to get around the 2nd Amendment in doing so? I'd love to hear your ideas on this.
And judging from the last few lines of your post, I have a feeling that your issue isn't so much with the bill itself but with Governor Haley. It's glaringly apparent to me from your comments that you despise the woman, and those comments also lead me to believe that you're not the "pro gun" person you claim to be - or at least not to the degree that you think you are.
You and others like you all fail to see the facts for what they are, those facts being that where the citizens are allowed to arm and defend themselves, violent crime drops. If you don't believe me then go to the FBI's website and read their report on violent crime in the United States since the passage of the first "must issue" CCW law in Florida in 1996 and see for yourself.
Lastly, thank you so much for allowing me to have my own opinion, disagree with yours, but most of all to say what I want about it.
In closing, let me go back and reiterate to all who may be reading this what I initially said in my first post: I'm all in favor of people getting the training needed to be able to handle a firearm safely, and will support such training unless and until it takes the form of a requirement by law to do so. At that point you have violated the 2nd Amendment, and such a requirement is thereby unconstitutional and something I will fight against until my dying day.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It's as simple as that.
IHC
No comments:
Post a Comment