Another point of view RE: Concealed Carry Of Weapons Superior To Taking Weapons: S. 388, Part III
Date: Feb 3, 2007 9:36 PM

http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7063_0_1_0_M

Concealed Carry Of Weapons Superior To Taking Weapons: S. 388, Part III

By John Longenecker on Feb 03, 07

As I mentioned in previous comments on S. 388 (the nationwide concealed
carry permit recognition bill introduced by U.S. Representative John Thune,
R-S.D.) the very idea of carrying weapons made uniform nationwide can
impeach the need for many social programs which are based on a theory of
violence.

Could it all really happen?

Yes. Because most social programs are based on a lie, and impeaching the lie
will starve them to death. The rest will take care of itself. Unwelcome
policies interfere with this natural societal dynamic. Time to reverse it.

In sorting out the better objectives, understand that the right and left do
not simply differ on how to approach the same goals: the liberty in America
insist on the official?s living up to one?s oath of office, while the
anti-liberty in America lure officials away from their oath of office.

S. 388 is a move in the right direction because it adheres to the oath of
office to protect and defend the Constitution. S. 388 does so by restoring
official respect for it and begins a journey to put it back the way it was.

But holding officials to their oath doesn?t go unpunished: it is the
greatest source of attack on liberty enthusiasts as being gun nuts, wild
west, isolationist, anti-social and other wrong-headed perceptions in gun
control which disarms the people by taking more than guns.

Many impartial citizens don?t realize how ? truly ? the so-called liberty
enthusiasts protect the entire nation from wherever they are by insisting on
integrity from our officials everywhere they are.

The ills of American society ? like the ills of Europe ? are aggravated here
by the brokering of unwelcome interference and largess programs unasked and
based on so-called compassion, but which in reality feed a morbid hunger to
make people dependent.

This is a transfer of wealth in our society.

Of course independence would naturally discredit these and reverse most
attacks. In short, liberty can take care of itself.

You can see how the two benefits of meeting personal violence with your
current lawful authority (having your weapon with you when you need it
immediately to back your present legal authority to prevent a felony) and
thereby continuously discrediting national social dependency based on such
unanswered violence are inextricable. Carrying a weapon is a constant
safeguard not only against personal grave danger, but against policies
brokering dependency in the name of necessity (against criminal violence no
less!).

This is why the second amendment is impervious to ordinary due process. It
prevents a takeover of the United States by rhetoric.

Meanwhile, we have a sad but vitally important case study out of Fox News.

Fox News and FoxNews.com report that in Marianna, Florida, the wife of the
Sheriff John McDaniel was killed at home.

Mellie McDaniel was in phone contact with her husband precisely at the time
she was being followed home from shopping and saw someone pull in the
driveway, reportedly, and she was in what we call reasonable apprehension of
immediate danger. Her husband the Sheriff sent officers Code Three. By the
time they were 10-97 ? reportedly within two minutes ? Mellie McDaniel was
already deceased. One of the deputies responding, officer Harold Altman, was
killed. Mrs. McDaniel had been murdered in the moments among her recognition
of the problem, her request for aid and the arrival of assets.

Condolences, Sheriff McDaniel, on the loss of your wife. Condolences to your
family and to your entire community.

More facts will emerge, but will they change the truth and object lesson
value of the case?

Police do a great job and their reason for entering law enforcement meets
with a great deal of satisfaction, I?m informed. Average citizens enter the
career to enjoy it on a number of levels ? in applied technology and real
science, in investigation, in team approach, in protection of the public, in
the general administration of justice, in making a real contribution, and
more.

But it?s not all Code Three, and law enforcement itself acknowledges that it
has no mandate to protect individuals. It?s not broadcast, but it?s not a
secret.

On top of that, they simply cannot always arrive within a life-saving
response time. It is just not possible.

According to the annual survey of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs 2006 conducted
annually by the Fraternal Order Of Police, your officers do not oppose
concealed carry and ownership of guns as portrayed by the anti-gun movement.

Surprised? It?s not unusual to politically try to divide allies. And
understand that gun owners and police are not foes, but allies. Why give law
enforcement the unreasonable burden of enforcing unreasonable gun laws
against their supporters?

It?s also a practical and tactical reality for any head of household
planning household safety in anticipation of an eventual encounter with
criminal violence. Anywhere you are in America ? anywhere ? you?re still
precious to your family. And you are a sovereign citizen of the United
States.

This is the importance of S. 388 right off the bat: it recognizes your
citizen right and your personal sovereignty. Further, S. 388 recognizes your
authority. The immediacy of someone?s carrying his own weapon wherever he
goes is a moral imperative. Citizens do not take the law into their own
hands: we are the law.

Where concealed carry prevents crime from being an excuse to impose
destructive, counter-intuitive social change, it is not the job of Congress
to impose gun laws, but to protect rights and avoid such laws, with personal
sovereignty superior to takings. S. 388 moves in that direction and is
therefore more pro-American ? more pro-people, more pro-family, more
pro-community, more patriotic ? than any gun law could be. It begins to put
it back the way it was. Note that we didn?t have school shootings until they
became gun-free zones.

S. 388 should also expand where one can carry, including churches, schools,
all public buildings, airports and civil aircraft, places presently
designated defenseless zones. Anywhere police can be summoned, citizens
should carry simply because police derive their very authority from the
people. It?s not the liberty nuts committing the crimes.

[With the FBI?s Uniform Crime Report showing that armed citizens stop a
crime more than 2.5 million times a year, the armed citizen is the unseen
security of a community. That security was put there.]

Why not make this nationwide?

Let?s get real: let?s get optimistic: repealing all gun laws will impeach in
big box bulk lots the silly and ineffectual social programs built on the lie
of handling violence ? and which never did any good. Of course they didn?t.

Can it really unwind these?

Let?s find out.

Support S. 388 not only for the carrying of personal weapons in personal
authority and in the affirmation of your other rights, but also because the
very carrying of weapons will impeach the need for social programs written
on the promise of stopping violence that only you can stop.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !