Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Mindless in Milwaukee III

One day in June, over two years ago, I wrote a pair of blog posts about op-ed pieces written by Milwaukee columnists whose "thoughts" about guns could have been summed up on the back of a postage stamp, but who nevertheless decided to devote full columns to them. Since then, numerous opportunities to add to the series have come up (I have, in fact, recently mentioned Eugene Kane, the author of one of the columns).

It took Peggy Shulz's column: "Public safety must be the top priority" to spur me to actually write the third installment in my "Mindless" series.

Dec. 15 will mark the 218th anniversary of the enactment of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The National Rifle Association and others who want to give Wisconsinites the right to carry concealed weapons often cite the Second Amendment as their justification.
No one, Peggy, wants to "give" Wisconsinites the right to keep and bear arms--that right predates the NRA, and indeed the Constitution itself--it is a fundamental, human right, a right that belongs to each of us by virtue of our humanity.
Is it possible to know what motivated the framers of the Constitution?
Um--yeah, Peggy, it is.
Could the founders of arguably the greatest democracy on Earth really have foreseen that their decision would be used more than 200 years later to justify the proliferation of handguns in American society? I doubt it.
Well if you doubt it, Peggy, then who are we to disagree? Who can argue with such impressive credentials as: "Peggy Schulz of Milwaukee is a freelance writer and a single, bus-riding renter"?
We live in a fairly well-ordered society, but that order is achieved through a delicate balance of individual rights and the well-being of society as a whole.
WRONG, Peggy--the well-being of society isn't in some kind of zero-sum competition with individual rights--our rights form the very basis of our well-being.
Is it a good idea, for example, to add concealed weapons to the already problematic issue of road rage? When a driver snaps and loses his or her cool, how easy would it be for the driver to pull out a concealed handgun and escalate things further?
It was one thing for that argument to be brought up during debates about legalized concealed carry in the first few states to implement such laws, but now that dozens of states have done so, without any sign of an epidemic of road-rage induced shootings, is it not well past time to put that fantasy to rest?
And let's think about domestic violence situations, which threaten the very core of our society: the family unit. Is it wise to make it lawful for domestic partners who are at or near the boiling point to arm themselves while out in public, so that when they do boil over, the gun can be used with possibly deadly results?
If it's domestic violence, the perpetrator will have plenty of opportunity to shoot his/her domestic partner at home--concealed carry doesn't enter into it.
Because, let's face it, handguns are intended for one thing and one thing only: to wound and kill people.
Mine must be defective, then--they haven't wounded or killed anyone--instead, they have only helped secure my safety.
Milwaukee's police chief and county district attorney have suggested we, in effect, dangle a concealed-carry law for Wisconsin over the heads of the NRA in order to get it to support a law requiring criminal background checks for all gun purchases, not just those at federally licensed gun stores.

The background check law is a no-brainer. And we shouldn't have to lower our standards on concealed carry to get the too-powerful NRA to support closing a loophole that never should have been left open in the first place.
Finally! A couple points of agreement. A law banning private sales would indeed be a "no-brainer"--an idea readily dismissed by those in possession of functioning brains. And I also agree that compromising on that which shall not be infringed is unacceptable.

Perhaps, Peggy, you should change your description of yourself to " . . . a freelance writer and a single, short-bus-riding renter."


Anonymous said...

We need to ask Peggy, if when she has a heated argument with a loved one at home or even a stranger on the street if she would shoot them if she had a gun readily available?
If she would not, then what gives her the right to assume you or I would?
You made all the right arguments in support of your position, but Peggy may be too far gone.
Paul in Texas