A Brit Asks, "Why Carry?"

[VegasGeorge]

I participate in a mostly British brass music forum. I mentioned carryconcealed.net in one of my posts there. One of the other forum members, a Brit, posted a question: "Why would anyone need to carry a gun?" Here is my reply.

That's a fair question, and it deserves a truthful answer. I can only speak for myself, but I'm more than willing to do that.

I carry a gun because it is my right to do so, granted by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I know that right is under constant attack and challenge. And, I firmly believe that rights must be regularly exercised, or they will be lost. I value my 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, so I exercise it regularly. I think it is a "Use it, or lose it" situation. For the same reason, I blog my views on current events and issues. I don't want to lose my right of free speech. One reason I continue to attend church is that I don't want to lose that right, either. I don't want to be passive about any of my rights as an American. I know for a fact that there are powerful forces in play that would strip me of my rights if they could. I don't want that to happen.

That brings up the underlying reason for the inclusion of our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The framers of our Constitution didn't want the populace of our country to be vulnerable to governmental abuses. They didn't want us to be defenseless against tyranny, domestic or foreign. In their view, an armed populace would keep government in its rightful place. So that's the bottom line. By carrying my weapon I participate in that plan as a guardian of American liberty and freedom under our Constitution.

[DAN]

Right on Vegas George. How fortunate we are!
DAN

[Bill of Rights]

Well-replied, not that that's any surprise.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." --V (V for Vendetta, 2005)

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

I have a blogging friend from the U.K. and I was surprised to read the following post from her blog recently. I was surprised because the government in that country has done an effective job in convincing its citizens that strict gun control creates a "safer" society. Here's an example of a woman who understands the illogical nature of such reasoning. It's a long post and rambling in parts, but it's a different (and refreshing) view from a British citizen.

From DeeJay's U.K. Blog:

Jackboot politicians

In the ongoing crusade of British governments which has been the trend over the the last deacde or two, we see more and more restrictions on our liberties, in an effort to keep us "safe."

Perfectly, every day normal objects of desire, are now desired more, because our goverment either restricts, bans, legislates against, or just makes the old freedoms and liberties we could take for granted, that little bit harder or at times impossible to do any longer.

The obvious thing of course is how I can't see in my life time, (even if I had a full life-expectantcy) guns as a means of weapons to defend ourselves against criminals, ever being legal here, they haven't been in living memory and a few short years ago, when, a madman in Scotland entered a school and murdered several children with a gun, even sporting firearms were banned, as a reaction rather than the informed response our government SHOULD have made. As things stand, the only citizens who have guns are the criminals. As one can only own them illegally. And yet gun crime is on the increase markedly in the UK. So, how does that do anything besides make law abiding citizens sitting ducks, who can't do a thing to defend themselves if attacked by a criminal with a gun?

Cigarettes are being restricted about where one can and one can't smoke. And I guess in some respects in our day and age and increasing awarness about health this is to be expected. Yet I note the government places restrictions on them, and yet despite smoking related illness being one of the leading causes of death in England, they don't ban, those, as the revenue from them is much too valuable. An average packet of twenty cigarettes in England will cost you at least five British pounds. (around nine US dollars). And about four of those five pounds the government gets from taxing them.

So, the goverment, seems to restrict everything in a lop-sided way, (and the list could go on) and in both situations, there namby pamby leglislation breeds death to Englanders! Carry on smoking, but only as we allow, but continue to kill yourself because we need the money from you doing so. And ban all guns, from law abiding citiziens, let only the criminals have them, so that Joe Bloggs has no way to defend himself or his family if they are attacked. To the criminals this says, do as you will, there is no fear from you doing so. We have no death penalty for murderes. An average murderer gets ten years in prison. The majority of our police do not bear arms when on duty. So, either way, its illogical. I don't object to cigarettes being on sale, what I do obejct to, is the governments hypocrisy over it, and its half baked efforts to restrain it, while refusing to give up the revenue they get from it. I object to the restrictions because of the hypocrisy and double standards. The government think we need them to keep us safe. Well they don't seem to be making a very good job of it. But the nanny state mentality will no doubt continue, and we shall be restricted further, and by doing so, have our liberties and rights impinged upon, for the sake of "safety" when in actual fact, its anything BUT safe. If the government examined the gun issues of America in an informed way, rather than reacting every time we hear of some new gun atrocity over the atlantic, then, they may realize that this nanny state they are creating, where the criminals have all the rights, is the antithesis of safe.

[nodaywithout]

A little over a year ago i was packing up my last appartment.
I had just finished unloading the van and was getting ready to load up once again. When someone I know is a local gang memeber began approaching me with a knife while still approximatley 17 feet away i reached into my van with him still approaching my 6, i then grabbed my pellet CO2 powered pistol (yes it is a pellet gun but intemidating none the less) and tucked it into the back of my pants, in a way that he could still see it. Once he say the pistol he stopped dead in his tracks and walked away. There had been many instinces other than this one where in that appartment complex just the image of a gun has stopped a suspected robber from taking my money and or my life.
If the would be robber, would have continued my pellet gun would have only stunned him his knife could have killed me, and after all I only had my Co2 pistol because my friends and i were shooting a old cell phone earlier that day.
It is because of this close call that i want to CCW!


This is my reason for getting a CCW permit, SELF DEFENSE can save your life, you can be attacted at any given time, at any given place.

[hpj3]

One of the best retorts to the sheeple question "why do you carry a gun?" was simple - because I can't carry a cop... :lol:

Howard

[HairyEyeball]

VegasGeorge wrote:

I carry a gun because it is my right to do so, granted by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

No, no, no! Wrong! The Second Amendment 'granted' nothing - it merely acknowledged a right that preexisted the founding of the nation. The presumption that the Constitution, and by extension the government it created, 'granted' a 'right' (a true oxymoron) gives credence to the converse - that the government can revoke it. By definition, anything the government may grant or revoke at whim is not a 'right', but a mere privilege.

[Poogsdad]

Some time ago on CalCCW.com a poster asked this question. Many answers were given, all valid and reasonable. This was my response:

Like XXXXXXX, I note a hint of sarcasm in your post.

I do not fear for my life on this earth, because, quite frankly, the animals who have tried in the past or may attempt to do so in the future are far less capable of taking my life than I am of preventing them from doing so, regardless of whether I am carrying a firearm or not. Of those that attempted to take my life in the past, most of them are no longer on this earth and I still am.

I am not proud of the fact that I have killed in the past. It is a fact, however, that I live with and the "rightness" of my decision to take those lives has never been questioned in my eyes or the eyes of those whose opinion I value.

I am concerned for the safety of my family, my friends, and those that rely on me for their safety. I CCW because I have made the health and welfare of my family, my friends, and loved ones my personal responsibility.

I will not be a victim and I will do everything within my power to ensure that my family, friends and loved ones do not become victims either.

Now, like XXXXX, I ask "Why do you ask this question"?

I perceived the poster's original post to be sarcastic and inappropriate given the venue and target audience. It is possible that I may have taken it a bit "too personal", but this was my response and I still stand by it.

Thanks,

[Bill of Rights]

VegasGeorge wrote:

I carry a gun because it is my right to do so, granted by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

No, no, no! Wrong! The Second Amendment 'granted' nothing - it merely acknowledged a right that preexisted the founding of the nation. The presumption that the Constitution, and by extension the government it created, 'granted' a 'right' (a true oxymoron) gives credence to the converse - that the government can revoke it. By definition, anything the government may grant or revoke at whim is not a 'right', but a mere privilege.

Good catch, HairyEyeball. I'm surprised I missed that. Probably did so because I'm not accustomed to seeing George make mistakes. I can't speak for his "real life", but it doesn't happen very often on here.

George: Forty lashes with a soggy noodle! http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/whip.gif

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

VegasGeorge wrote:[quote]I carry a gun because it is my right to do so, granted by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Well, I had determined to let this slip by out of deference to HairyEyeball being new and all. But, if you guys are going to "pile on," I guess I'll just have to say a word or two in my defense.

Yeah sure, I know. You want to read the Declaration of Independence as sort of a preamble to the Constitution. Lots of us do that, and it is not an unreasonable thing to do. In the Declaration it is written "... all men ...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...." So, based on that concept we believe that our rights predate the Constitution, and exist independently of the Constitution. That's all lofty and noble and well. But, how would that work in the real world? The fact is, it couldn't.

In the first place, there would be no agreement among men as to what those "unalienable Rights" are. All you have to do is look around you today to verify that. To be workable in any but a philosophical sense, our Rights must be enumerated. That's exactly why the first 10 Amendments were titled the "Bill" of Rights. Webster's first definition of "bill" is "an itemized list or a statement of particulars." It's interesting to note that our Rights, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are expressed both as affirmative Rights, and as Rights secured by prohibition of interference. It just so happens that our Right to keep and bear arms is one of the Rights affirmatively enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

When we talk about our Rights, we are normally talking about a legal concept rather than a religious concept. I once heard a lawyer challenged in open court by a judge to site some authority for a rather basic legal opinion. After much sputtering, the lawyer declared his position supported by the Magna Carta. Needless to say, the judge was not impressed. How much less impressed would the judge have been, had the lawyer simply blurted out that God granted his client that unalienable Right? I would not envy a lawyer with such a shallow brief.

You may all believe as you wish concerning God's grace, and I respect you for that. But when challenged to demonstrate that I have the Right to keep and bear arms, I will hold up the Bill of Rights, and point to the 2nd Amendment. For there, it is written, as plainly as God wrote the Great Tablets for Moses, that I do, in fact, have that Right.

[HairyEyeball]

Sorry, but your presumptions about 'what I think' are uninformed and incorrect. I base my premise on the writings of those responsible for the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution it amended, primarily but not exclusively as contained in the Federalist (and Anti-Federalist) Papers. Unlike your lawyer, I do my homework.

I don't recall invoking any Divine Power, religious justification or moral code - merely that the right of self-defense is a 'natural right', as propounded by Locke and others who influenced the thinking of the Founding Fathers. Insofar as our legal system is based, in great part, on English Common Law, which in turn has roots in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the thesis that the rights enumerated in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution predate the founding of the nation is indisputable.

As to any 'agreement' as to what those 'inalienable rights' may be, consider the fact that governments created by the citizenry have de facto reached agreement as to what such are, and were established as a controlling body to oversee such are enforced in an equal and unprejudiced manner. Any perversion of such power lies with that government, and not as failure of 'the people' to 'agree' on what constitute 'natural' or 'inalienable' rights.

One must also concede that as a nation, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian precepts of 'morality': Whether Divinely inspired or sprung from the hand of man, the precepts espoused, and codified into law, inarguably support the theory of man having equal rights - and duties - which again far predate the founding of this nation.

You made a simple, albeit common, misstatement of fact in an area I have some knowledge of. I pointed out that error. I had no expectation of being attacked for the 'crime' of providing such knowledge as would prevent further distortion of fact. Is this the manner in which this forum is generally conducted?

[ccadmin]

May I offer a suggestion:

VegasGeorge has been a valuable contributor to this forum. We have respected and need his help.

Harryeyeball, we can tell that we also need your help and expertise in this forum.

Could we trade some private notes and talk off line to discuss this.

Thanks to both of you and I am looking forward to your new posts.

[Bill of Rights]

Well, I had determined to let this slip by out of deference to HairyEyeball being new and all. But, if you guys are going to "pile on," I guess I'll just have to say a word or two in my defense.


I was going to send this in private. I decided against it, because I posted the first one in public as well.

George, I am sorry. I had no intention of "piling on" you. (My "whip" smiley was meant to be humorous, which on reflection does not seem to be so.) The fact is that you don't make many mistakes on here, and it is that which I was emphasizing. I had intended it as a complimentary note, of sorts. The fact is that you're exceptionally knowledgeable and I learn a lot from reading your posts, even if I don't agree completely with you- I still learn and disagreement does not equal error, after all, only difference of opinion. There is always respect. I regret that my earlier post did not exemplify that respect, and again, I apologize.

HairyEyeball, while I also am of the opinion that the right is not granted but rather protected by the Constitution (as amended), I will say that though I do not know you, as you're new here, I respect your statement that you have knowledge of the discussion of rights and their origin. I will not dispute this. Similarly, I know that he also has rather extensive knowledge and experience in those matters as well. My friend VegasGeorge likely felt himself "attacked" in part by your "no, no, NO!" and in part by my agreement. I have apologized for my part in that and clarified that no such attack was intended. I do not believe that it was his intention to attack you, either. This subject, while very germane to the purpose of this board, went awry. I fear I am the cause of this. Thus, at CCAdmin's request that the conversation now end, I will post this apology and I will then lock the topic.

Gentlemen, again, my apologies for my part in this disagreement.

Blessings,
M

(edit: Subsequently unlocked at the request of VegasGeorge, by CCAdmin, which action with which I concurred. StM)