Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment’

Colorado Guard Could Have Been Any Citizen

Dec 10, 2007 Political

Columbine, Virginia Tech, the mall in Omaha, and a church in Colorado all have one thing in common. They were all places where a gunman (or gunmen) opened fire on innocent people. In several of the incidents a large number of people were murdered because they did not have protection. They were not able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and they died because of it. The irony is that several of these places are in states that allow people to carry but the murders took place in no-carry zones. It would seem that the murderers selected the targets for this reason, no resistance.

Things were slightly different at the church in Colorado Springs in that there was an armed security guard there and she pulled out her weapon, identified herself and then took out the shooter when he failed to listen. This demonstrates what could have happened in each of the other shootings if only one person had been able to exercise his Constitutional right. The only thing that is irritating is that the only person at the church allowed to have a gun was a guard. If that guard had not been there the death toll would have been higher.

I listened to a radio program the other day and I heard them talking about the mall shooting and one person suggested that they have metal detectors at the malls. That will go over like a pregnant pole vaulter. Another person called in and suggested that if people had the right to carry arms this would not have been that bad and immediately the host said well we can’t have people carrying guns. Imagine the mess if there is a sale item that runs out, Black Friday would really be black.

This is an assumption based in little reality. Nearly 40 states have open carry laws. When was the last time you read about someone getting shot because of a sale frenzy or Christmas shopping frustration? Never, because responsible gun owners don’t go around shooting people. Then the host said imagine if two gangs got ticked off in the store. Hello! Gang members get their guns illegally and carry them regardless of the law. If they want to have a shootout they will not decide against it based upon a no-carry law.

The fact is, in places like Texas and Florida, where people may openly carry, there are fewer crimes and people with carry permits are not causing them. I think one person out of 350,000 permit holders in Florida broke the law. The balance obey the law and carry their guns responsibly.

Imagine how history might look at the above incidents given different circumstances. In Columbine it might have been reported that, after hearing gunshots, a teacher pulled out his pistol and shot the criminals before they went around shooting people like fish in a barrel. Imagine the headlines at VT if one person who had a permit had been allowed to carry his weapon on campus. Police today said that two students were killed before Joe Smuckatelli, a part time student at VT, pulled his pistol and killed a deranged student who went on a shooting spree. In Omaha the news might have been very different if only one person in that mall had a weapon and could have used it against the nut job kid who went on a killing spree.

The Colorado Springs incident shows how quickly people’s lives can be saved if an armed person is able to confront an assailant. Interestingly, there are many cases where armed citizens actually stop crimes without firing a shot. The act of brandishing a weapon is often enough to stop a criminal in the act. These hardly get reported because they do not fit the gun grabbing agenda of the MSM. Even though it is painfully clear, as demonstrated in the Colorado shooting, that armed citizens save lives, politicians will still refuse to allow us our God given right to keep and bear arms.

And while they do, the murder rate will continue to rise, but only in places with strict gun control.

Source:
7 News Denver

Big Dog

Tags: , , , , , ,

Do They Really Need a Warrant?

Nov 17, 2007 General

Some groups are up in arms (pardon the pun) because the Boston police want to search homes for guns without a warrant. On the surface this sounds like a bad thing and if this were the whole truth it would be. The article goes on to describe that police want to search homes without a warrant after asking permission from the homeowner. If a police officer asks if he may search your home and you say yes he does not need a warrant. You are free to say no.

I will admit that the plan to search children’s bedrooms has flaws. The idea is that parents are so fed up and afraid of the gun violence that they will allow the searches and a warrant will not need to be obtained. In order to get a warrant the police would need probable cause, if they ask the homeowner and are allowed to search they do not need the warrant or probable cause. I would not allow the police to search my home without a warrant. I have nothing to hide but I will not give them access without probable cause and they need that to get a warrant. What will happen to the homeowner if they have other illegal items? Suppose they illegally copy DVDs and they are in the open? A warrant would specifically state what is to be searched and what they may look for. If the homeowner lets them in they can arrest for anything they find. I don’t condone illegal activity but I do not condone bypassing the rights people have. Of course, if someone is not bright enough to know his rights or to exercise them, perhaps he gets what he deserves. In any event, using fear to search a house is not a good way to conduct business.

The bigger issue here is why are there so many illegal guns in Boston and why are there so many shooting? Massachusetts has very tough gun control laws and the gun grabbers all tell us that the way to get guns off the streets by having these kinds of laws. If they are correct then there should be very few guns and very little gun violence. Perhaps there is some realization that criminals do not obey the law. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), ‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’ [Federalist Patriot]

So how do so many guns end up in a state or a city in that state when the gun control laws are so strict that people get jail time for having BB guns? Obviously those who have little or no regard for the rule of law will not follow the law.

There are two issues here. Should the police be allowed to search without a warrant? No, unless of course the homeowner gives permission and only a fool would do that. Secondly, why is there a problem if gun control laws really work?

The founders recognized that we had an inherent right to carry arms in order to defend ourselves against invaders, the lawless and a tyrannical government. This is undeniable and clearly explained in their writings on the issue. We are also protected against unlawful search and seizure so it would be in the best interest of Boston homeowners to just say no…

Big Dog

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

eXTReMe Tracker