Today's JPFO Alert notes that when protecting money is a sufficiently good reason for the government to "allow" you to carry a gun, but protecting your life is not, something is very wrong.
This reflects a sick, twisted, and depraved set of values. The gun ban zealots
claim to value each and every human life above all other things, but this policy, and others like it elsewhere, show the real truth. To these people, one's value can be deduced from one's bank statement. This scrofulous outlook must be utterly rejected by all people of decency, and Judge Scullin's ruling is a good step in the right direction.
Stumble it!
1 comments:
This kind of hypocritical double standard has always been common in the "may issue" states. In New York, a citizen who had been mugged on the subway would apply for a CCW license and be turned down. Then the publisher of the (rabidly anti-gun) New York Times, who did not even use public transportation, would be granted a license.
Maybe you could make a case that millionaires, CEO's, and celebrities are especially likely targets for stalkers or kidnappers. But you could also say that such people can afford to hire armed bodyguards. And since they don't use public transportation, they are at low risk for mugging. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens are just as likely to be targets of random violence and street crime.
"Discretionary" permit systems put a lot of power into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians. They also are a great way for corrupt authorities to make extra money when rich applicants bribe them to approve their licenses.
And, is there a state where you have to prove that you have a "good reason" to own a car?
Post a Comment