"...as I read the state statute, I don’t see anything that expressly affords the right to “open carry,” as it is called by advocates. Nor do I see anything in the statute that expressly prohibits it."
Is the statute superior to the PA & US Constitutions?
"While some gunslingers will adamantly disagree, a room in which there are no guns is safer than a room in which even one gun is present, no matter what color hat you’re wearing. This is just as true with other lethal instruments, such as the broadsword, catapult, rocket launcher and French horn."
In other words, if there are 10 people in a room, one of whom is a 6'4" 250-pound psycho with a machete and a black hat, 9 of whom are civilians in white hats, you're safer if none of the guys in white hats have a gun.
That "logic" would, of course, apply to a living room or a bedroom. Or any other room.
And even if one of the guys in white hats was wearing a state trooper hat 20 minutes earlier, you're safer if everyone is defenseless except the crazy guy with the machete.
By your "logic", you would also be safer OUTSIDE the room, or in a patio, or a park, or a sidewalk, or a car -- i.e., everywhere else -- if all of the decent citizens were defenseless. So your argument undermines the rationale of deterrence, damage mitigation, and crime prevention not only for any carry law, but for any gun ownership at all.
Real genius, pal. Good thing you're not one of those 2nd Amendment types who make gun owners look stupid.
Russ and I both agree that this observation, by "haris@hilton.com" on KABA Comments, is brilliant:
Ask that idiot if he would feel safer in the National Matches at Camp Perry or in the exercise yard of San Quentin?
This guy Kelly is another of those gun owners I've started calling IQFs.
My comment (#76) on the Times-Tribune website:
ReplyDelete"'I firmly believe in the Second Amendment...but...' always seems to translate as, 'I trust myself with whatever I choose, but I don't trust you at all.'
"I too firmly believe in the Second Amendment, but I don't think you should use arms to commit robbery, rape, or murder. Just like I firmly believe in the First Amendment, but don't think you should use speech or the press to commit slander, fraud, or sedition. However, that's as far as my 'but...' amendments to the Constitution go.
"Memo to ignorant, arrogant typists masquerading as 'authorized journalists': I don't trust you with so much as quill pen, much less a fully-automatic web press or an assault web site. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects you as much as the Second Amendment protects me, so I'm used to seeing lying propaganda like this.
"In the same way, get used to seeing honest folk wearing guns, openly, in public, who are not in any way answerable to you or to control freaks with badges.
"I look for the day when a report of citizens openly wearing guns is taken as seriously by the police as a report of citizens openly running their mouths.
Even in restaurants."
Apparently in this case, the statement "I firmly believe in the Second Amendment" actually means: "I firmly believe that people have the right to hunt and target shoot, but I soil my panties if I see one or more law-abiding citizens carrying their guns for protection. I want the government to put these people in their place, preferably shackled in train cars on the way to the camps."
ReplyDeleteThe typical "I support the 2nd Amendment, but..." demonstrates his quisling ideals.
Does he "believe in the right not to be tortured, but..." or "believe in the right to a speedy trial, but..." as well?
The qualifier doesn't work. The word "but" effectively negates the alleged "belief" in the right.
My English teacher wife would give him an "F" for stating an alleged belief and then throwing said belief out the window with the addition of a single word.
How about this: I believe that child molesters should be punished, but..."
Remember the old commercial? Does she or doesn't she - that is the question.
Whadda maroon...
Ned
It's better to have it and never need it than not have it and only need it ONCE.
ReplyDelete"Journalists" whose FIRST mission is to be entertaining and show how goshdarn clever they are are the journalism industry's worst enemy. People will not pay to be insulted for long. I know how it is with local reporters who don't know the difference between a semi-auto and a sandbag and ALSO can't recognize our Founding documents when they sit on the crackly parchment.
The SECOND thing dictators do is jail the media. Even the ones offering constructive advice, not condemnation. You can read about it any day on the Internet or ... in the newspaper. Everyone thinks it'll never happen to them.
Ask that idiot if he would feel safer in the National Matches at Camp Perry or in the exercise yard of San Quentin?
ReplyDeleteI am gonna steal that line like third base...