“CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY”

Or maybe the Green Mountain Boys model …

Of course, any fifteen year old could be wrong. The Supreme Court is not the only arbiter of constitutional law in this country. It is also every elected official,every peace officer and bureaucrat, and every citizen in various capacities.

While the modern fashion has been to relenquish the authority to judge the constitutionality of the law to the Supreme Court, it has not always been so. Clearly, every citizen and officer has a part to play in this drama.

Once terms have become established, they take on a life of their own. I have used Vermont Carry in the past, but it appears that Constitutional Carry is here to stay.

Our rights are given to us from God. The constitution recognizes and protects certain God given rights. The 2a says “bear arms”…which means to carry.

Therefore the 2A SHOULD BE your carry “permit/license”.

Anything beyond that which “allows/permits” us to carry is just a unconstitutional hoop that one must jump through in order to protect our rights. It’s as simple as that.

I’m glad we can still exercise constitutionally protected free speech.

Words *do* mean things, and it is important to choose the right ones…the media (and our opponents) delight in the subtle manipulation of meaning.

“Active Shooter” is a term that I despise, because it is frequently used to describe someone in the act of attempting mass murder. It ties the word ‘shooter’ to the mental image of some deranged individual killing helpless kids. If I am trying to stop such a lunatic with my carry pistol, *I’m* an active shooter, and *he* is a ‘gunman’, ‘terrorist’, ‘murderer’, or an ‘armed criminal’.

Using ‘sniper’ to describe police marksmen is another. Snipers are military personnel whose primary duty is to kill the enemy from ambush, alone or in pairs. They are often tasked to provide precision long range fire in support of other troops, but that does not change the harsh truth of their purpose – cold blooded murder of critical enemy personnel. Police sharpshooters do not murder from ambush. They are deployed to save lives, and always in support of other officers. All snipers must be marksmen/sharpshooters, but the reverse is not true.

Amen Mas,

Outstanding article sir

“…the arbiter of Constitutional law in this country is the Supreme Court of the United States. In two recent decisions … SCOTUS has confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is indeed an individual right. However, both of those decisions have also made it clear that the states have the right to regulate the practice.”

The Supreme Bureaucrats are wrong: States do not have a “right” to regulate what is a pre-existing, pre-constitution, pre-government right, the inherent human right to self-defense.

“…to be technically correct the right to carry without a permit in the above-named states flows from the wise majority in their state legislatures, and not directly from the Second Amendment.”

The right to carry a means of self-defense without the Rulers’ permission is a “right,” not a privilege. Once government officials and legislators (and police chiefs!) step in to control and limit what is a human right, then it is no longer a “right,” but a State-granted privilege.

Amen Mas,
I live in northern Nevada, (right here I’ll apologize to everyone for Harry Ried, I always voted against him) we have some fairly lax carry laws, (shall issue,open carry is legal). Permitless carry has been brought up in the state senate but never passed. I’m glad there are states in the Union that still believe in personal responsibility and civil liberty. I’m gonna continue to work hard to advocate the “Vermont Model” here in Nevada and I would love to hear other folks making a difference in their home state. I hope everyone reading your blogs is writing to the Senators and Congressmen, calling the Governers and letting the voice of common sense be heard.

Beautiful post that I agree with! I ‘ve argued long and hard that we are fighting a “semantic war “. This is more difficult and dangerous than bullets and bombs.

Mas, I’m so old that I can’t remember the first of your articles that I read, save that it was in a print magazine sometime in the 70’s.
Thanks for a lifetime of learning!
I agree with you, that unpermitted concealed carry would be a good thing. Any suggestions as to how to present the idea to our state legislators in the most credible way? I wouldn’t want to start off on the wrong foot.

Speaking of your older columns, is there an archive of them available anywhere, or would you consider starting one? I believe it would be a valuable resource, and classic literature is always good for the younger readers. I would love to begin with the first one that you wrote…

Thanks also for your service to us all.

In the real world that everyone except liberals live in, it has been proven over and over without any exceptions I am aware of, state and local governments that have relaxed carry restrictions have experienced a drop in violent crime. Those that have not have experience the opposite. The most heinous mass casualty attacks seem to always be where the carrying of weapons is highly restricted or prohibited. The ” common sense model ” maybe? Having h.r.218 coverage, it would be easy for me to not worry about a lot of these issues, but I have enough ” common sense ” to know what a legislature confers they can also take away.
As for open carry, I’m not against it, but I personally would never practice it. Call it the “hey, look at me!” model would probably be more descriptive.

From your lips to Dianne Feinstein’s ears. Words do mean things and one should not use words they do not understand, e.g. “assault weapon” and “shroud”.

Mas,

I understand that you work in the “real” world, and so I believe the point you are making is valid. I still like to strive for the “ideal” world anyway. Here’s a question; if someone has a right to do something, then why do they need a permit for it? Permits are for privileges (like driving a car), not rights. However, if we follow this to its logical conclusion, then when does one lose one’s rights? I guess it would be after they have committed a crime. If that is so, then anyone could possess a gun until they commit a crime. That might create dangerous situations, but then again, if more people were carrying guns, shooting rampages would be of shorter durations than they are now.

I can live with the permitting process as long as it is reasonable. It is not reasonable in HI, CA, IL, MD, NJ, NY and MA. These states infringe on our Second Amendment RIGHT.

I am not a lawyer, but I try to understand the law as it is currently practiced (case law and precedent), the original intent of the Constitution, and God’s Law anyway. Helps me with my moral compass.

Thanks Mas. I stole this and posted it on my time line!

Don’t forget that states have their own constitutions.

Article 2 Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution has long been interpreted as protecting the right of the people of AZ to carry guns in Public. For most of the state’s history, that even included concealed carry. The periods where concealed carry was prohibited and then allowed only with a permit were only a couple decades and there was never a (state) constitutional challenge to them. The whole time it was widely assumed that at the very least open carry was constitutionally protected in AZ.

Today it’s not hard to imagine that the AZ Supreme Court could very easily rule that permitless carry (whether concealed or not) is a right protected by the Arizona Constitution.

I haven’t researched Vermont, Alaska, or Wyoming but it wouldn’t surprise me to see similar situations in each of those states regarding their own constitutions.

It’s not about how we want it to be or how we think it should be…it’s about how it is.

Matt in GA, I agree with you. A lot of cops are starting to get away from the egregious “active shooter” and “police sniper” terminology, and into more appropriately descriptive terms.

Petercat, it seems to me that the best way to sell permitless carry in your state is to show your state legislators how well it has worked elsewhere.

Mas, I generally agree with you on most firearm topics. And you are deffinately more educated about the criminal justice system and the law than I am. But I have to take exception to the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.

If that were so, then our system of government would be a 9 member oligarchy not a Constituional Republic.

That may be how it is viewed and taught today, but that is not what the founders intended. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Supreme Court has the final say.

And there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that gives the government (any branch thereof) the authority to limit any right protected by it. Punish people for abuse of those rights? Yes, by all means! Take my rights away or limit them because bad people do bad things? Unconscionable.

Good post, Mas, Buy I must agree with Scott Lazarowitz. Unfortunately I also understand the reality of how this works, to the detriment of the constitution and our liberty. A six pack of the green stuff and we could argue about, to paraphrase one of those old dead white guys ” any law not inline with the constitution is null and void at its conception”.

It’s But not buy.

One factor that scares me with so called “constitutional carry” is that I suspect many folks will use this purely as an excuse to avoid ANY education & training at alll costs.

While I am in favor of people being armed I am NOT in favor of every ego inflated idiot strapping on a gun just to prove a point that “he don’t need no stinkin training”. Gun owners have taken enough hits below the belt as of late with some of the needless displays of stupidity that has surrounded open carry rights,,,,, we don’t need more help.

If you think I am wrong in my judgement just go to a local gun show or two and watch the brain dead morons with guns, fingers on the bang switch, muzzling the heck out of everybody in a 360 degree radius,,,,,, now put this same crew on the streets with LOADED guns.

Assuming states abandon any require training or proficiency requirements to carry,,,,HOW do we go about getting folks to accept the huge responsability of “carrying” and seek out education/training?

I’ve long ago concluded that “regulating” rights is really just violating them. Either you have the right to do something or you don’t. The problem is that few have a clear view of what rights really are. For that they need to read Ayn Rand.

Any consideration of the concept of rights has to begin with the understanding that the base of all rights is one’s life and that the issue should be approached rationally. We all have the right to do what we need to do to live and be happy as long as we aren’t using physical force or fraud against others.

So, how is owning, possessing or carrying a firearm using force or fraud against others?

It isn’t.

But gun regulation by the state against gun owners who are violating no one’s rights IS the use of force and the violation of their rights.

Much more can be written about tins and has been. For more I recommend one read Ayn Rand.

As a pro2A foreigner, and with the highest respect for the author, this seems like a load of flim-flam to me.

How many bizarre and infernal guns laws has your federal government created, then to be given the stamp of approval by the Supreme Court? Many thousands, I understand…

You currently have at least one sitting member on that council of would-be tyrants who flat out states that the 2A is no longer necessary and has no place being in the Constitution.

You say that the supreme court is the arbiter of the Document, and that may be true, but if you determine to defer yourself to their arbitration then you’ve placed your rights in the hands of a few individuals who have already proven themselves on multiple occasions to be collectivist quislings. Lackeys who will turn that sacred text on its side, upsidown and backward in order to read it however they like, with complete disregard for a purposive approach as and where it suits their agenda.

The Supreme Court is not the FINAL arbiter on the matter of the right to bear arms. The individual who concedes or rebels is the final arbiter.

Take it from someone who lives in a gun-unfriendly nation. Once you allow the statists to control your vocabulary you are screwed. I suspect your founding fathers would be ashamed that you had to give it a name in the first place, much less quibble over which name it should be. To them it would be “business as usual”.

I think it should be called “Natural Carry”, as in “the natural rights”. Or for those who wish to be more legalistic and constitutional – “Inalienable Carry”.

That will take it back all the way to the Declaration of Independence.

Excellent discussion, as usual, from Mas.
Having nearly finished Branca’s book, The Law Of Self Defense, and others, I am starting to feel “over matched.” I carry a heavy handgun for personal protection and that of others but find the public (esp liberals), the police and the legal system almost totally antagonistic against myself and anyone else doing the same. So, now I’m no longer welcome to walk into Starbucks? I am frightened to be stopped for a minor traffic offense.
Much of the time I wonder, “Why bother?”
Sorry to fly off topic but the frustration is starting to get to me.

Also, there are usually two constitutions involved; the US constitution and that state’s constitution. I can see this causing ambiguity. To me, sniper is a slang term in this day in age. We joke about “sniping” squirrels at long distance with .22LR’s. I don’t think we can ever avoid the association of anything we say with something someone else uses in a different context, who ever is right or wrong.

Some perspective:

When we started the push to remove the permit requirement for discreet carry in Arizona, there were two potential models – Vermont, which has never required nor issued such a permit, and Alaska, which made the permit optional but continued to offer it, primarily for those who might benefit from its recognition in some of the lower-48 states.

Initially, Arizona RKBA activists spoke of Alaska carry but, particularly in light of the wording of Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the sate shall not be impaired…” we decided to use the term “constitutional carry” as appropriate for our state.

If my count is correct, only six states lack some state-constitutional guarantee of the RKBA. Some address the right to bear arms, some do not. Some exclude “concealed carry” from the guarantee – allowing the legislature to “impair” that right with a permit requirement.

In my mind, the issue of whether or not to use the term “constitutional carry” ought to depend on each state’s constitution. SCOTUS has yet to rule on bearing arms (outside the home) but, in light of the Heller and McDonald rulings on keeping arms (inside the home), I would not expect the Supremes to overturn permit requirements for the latter.

Very cogent blog Mas. I hear exactly what you’re saying and this coming from a lifelong “anti-gun” person who until relatively recently in my well-past middle age existence has become “pro-gun and passionate about supporting gun rights. From a philosophical and purely moral perspective, I agree with the “Vermont Model”. In theory, every non-criminal and non-adjudicated mentally incompetent individual should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

But realistically, doesn’t the state have SOME overriding interest and requiring carriers to show some level of proficiency and familiarity with basic safety principles? Even as a relative novice (or maybe BECAUSE I’m a relative novice and not yet complete jaded) I’m aware of people at shooting ranges handling firearms like complete horse’s asses. I read about heart-breaking but entirely preventable tragedies involving negligent discharges, etc.

I don’t think requiring some minimal standards of proficiency in safe firearm handling is inappropriate. To steal from a great supreme court justice (Robert Jackson), the constitution is many things. I don’t think it was ever meant to be a suicide pact.

Ron, perhaps laws are not the answer to force training. Maybe creating a culture where it is just accepted that you learn the rules to be taken seriously. You’ve got people out there with their drivers permits/licenses to operate machines that can kill quite easily and they’re not good drivers.

How did society surivive pre 1968 or 1934? It was gun anarchy after all!

How about the “Vermont Defense Advantage”?

Or substitute another good state for Vermont.

Maybe one day when Hell freezes over, folks in Washington D.C., NYC, and Chicago can legally pack heat without a permit. Wouldn’t hold my
breath for this to happen, but if it does, bloomberg, schumer, feinstein, etc. will have to be dragged babbling incoherently to the insane asylum.

@Tommy Sewall – The way you prevent the loss (or total change) of a word’s meaning is to be careful about how you use it, and to never ignore when others use it incorrectly. Something becomes slang because people use the term in place of something else (that would be more correct/accurate). This is reinforced by advertisers who are constantly trying to find ways to make their ad copy sound different from everyone else’s pitch, too.

A few decades ago, ‘wicked’ meant ‘not good or righteous, evil’. ‘Bad’ meant ‘not good, something you would like or enjoy’. ‘Sick’ meant ‘ill, physically or mentally in poor health’. Advertising and slang use have turned these words 180 degrees around, where it is common to hear them used to represent things that people think are good/desirable/proper.

As an example of how this ‘creeping corrosion’ affects us as gun owners, consider the advertising in any recent magazine that caters to gun enthusiasts. Flip through it and see how many times you see words that *used* to mean negative things, that are now being used as positive terms. CCI’s recent ad for their subsonic 22LR ammo is an excellent example, with their ‘Hear No Evil’ tag line, and gives anti-gunners ready made propaganda about the evils of firearms. Bowhunting magazines are just as filled with examples of poor product names, and advertising that incenses the anti-hunting crowd. We are outraged when the media/antigun politicos use vague terms like ‘assault weapon’ to try and restrict our rights…but we encourage it when we casually accept the way people use slang and ignore the way advertisers spin things.

Words have power, and should be used carefully.

Gang,

Sorry to change the subject, but this is big news for warriors. Today I heard that Vo Nguyen Giap died on October 4th. He fought against the Japanese in WWII, with help from America, and he fought the French in the 1950s, and then he fought against us in Vietnam. What a life, and boy did he show us how the principles of Sun Tzu were still relevant in the twentieth century. Too bad he was a communist. For twenty-five years after the war, Vietnam was one of the poorest places on earth. I guess he was better at warfare than he was at business. He was 102-years-old!

Oh yeah, we always hear about how many of our boys died in Vietnam, but did you know that the North Vietnamese lost one and a half million soldiers fighting against us?

Great article Mas, in my state its required to have a CWP.. i just got home from NC.. was up for the weekend! Seems they just had a big law changed Oct. 1’st.. as to allow carry into resturants and bars. I have heard we have same law , just waiting to be tweek’d abit before the final passing! Any opinions on that? As for mine, i felt great sitting down to eat a nice dinner. Knowing i could defend myself if the need arose!! Many thanks and God Bless…

I agree mas, Vermont Carry, works for me. New Mexico, will allow open carry, but not concealed carry. Texas, has tried to pass the Vermont system. But, there’s been to much fear being spread about non-license carry.

Not being able to carry in other states, doesn’t give me a safe feeling at all. My friends and I, do travel a lot, so we’re allowed only to keep our weapons in our trucks.

Will Z. point well made. I can’t help facing the FACT that everybody being “armed” if permissible to do so, is such a great idea. I spend countless hours working as a CRSO & professional instructor. Many days I walk away from idiots thinking “it’s bad enough you drive a car let alone carry a gun”.

As for creating a culture to accept rules & responsibility,,,,, I learned long ago that the ONLY person I can change is me.

There may be times when some challenge rules & authority,, so be it. I feel some rules help make society polite.

Our law enforcement departments must “qualify” periodically and by today’s accounts I seem to find reports on a DAILY basis of STUPID stuff happening with cops & guns. So why is it that we feel offended by asking someone to prove just a tad of proficiency before carrying guns into public?

I am allergic to lead, and don’t feel all warm n fuzzy with somebody behind me as I am in line at the super market fondling the trigger on the gun in their pocket. Proficiency, education & training will help prevent such I would hope.

I really don’t know what the answer is,,,,, to me this issue represents a very complicated subject. The “rights” factor is ONLY one facet of the problem.

Mas and Friends:

I am currently investigating this matter in a series of academic articles.
I think this is an interesting discussion, but it opens a can of worms, indeed.

First issue is Constitutionality. The second is Practical Application

1) Constitutionality

Each state has its own issues and history – the view from Texas and how it generalizes.

The Texas Constitution, 1876,:

Article 1, “Bill of Rights”, Section 23 ” Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have the power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime ”

Texas has never regulated long arms; the Penal Code is absolutely silent on carrying of rifles and shotguns. You can walk through downtown Dallas with an AR and you are not violating any Penal Code provision about carrying weapons. If you do carry a rifle in downtown Dallas, likely cops will ask you what you are doing, and if what you are doing is perceived as creating a disturbance, you might get dinged for Disorderly Conduct. On the other hand, you might not, it is officer’s discretion. If you get busted, and there really was no disturbance, your attorney will likely get the charges dismissed. As a practical matter, no one will care if its in a gun rack in a pickup truck; things get more problematic if you are just walking around with it-I prefer to carry a concealed handgun – no muss no fuss.

On to the meat of the matter – the Texas Constitution allows the Legislature the power to regulate the wearing of arms. Short guns are “worn”, as are daggers and Bowie knives, which are also forbidden for most carry BTW.

The legislative history regarding this is very clear – the drafters of the 1876 Constitution were explicitly concerned about ” drunken negroes carrying revolvers”. Later discussions seem to include low paid cattle drovers, ie. “cowboys” in the same calculus. This was the era of “shoot-em-up” cowtowns, after all. The provision allowing the legislature to regulate the wearing of sidearms is therefore based on a concern for public safety , even if it was expressed in then common attitudes of racism and classism.
Open carry was common before passage of the new constitution; open carry became unlawful except while travelling , after passage. The law wasn’t always enforced, but open carry was illegal – as it still is today.

The Texas Constitution makes a clear distinction between arms that can be “Borne” and arms that can be “worn”.

I could turn this into an academic paper discussing whether the Second Amendment is fully incorporated, etc., but Ill jump to the conclusions – Unregulated Open Carry is probably Constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment; and the Texas proscription on Open Carry is likely unsustainable; I am much less sure that unregulated concealed carry is.

Rationale: You have a right to self-defense outside the home, MacDonald hints at that, and Shepard v. Madigan , US 7th Circuit, explicitly states it.
The right to self-defense outside the home can be fulfilled by open carry; concealed carry is merely a potential convenience to the gun carrier, it is not a requirement for personal self-defense, and therefore not as strongly Constitutionally protected.

Unregulated Open Carry is the constitutionally permissible level of regulation; and actually none is needed.

Is this a potential threat to public safety from accident?

No.The rationale is simple: every person an open carrier encounters can see for themselves that the open carrier is armed, if the open carrier is excercising the right in a manner that threatens the public peace or safety, every person in the vicinity is on notice to that fact and can take what precautions seem reasonable to them. Peace officers called to enforce the peace , if necessary, are also on notice.

Concealed carry is different – the concealed carrier has a hidden weapon, no one is on notice. Concealed carry is not a requirement for self-defense outside the home, it might be an advantage ( as I believe it is) but it is not a requirement- I can defend myself with an open carry sidearm as easily, or possibly more easily than with a concealed sidearm.

Certainly the Texas Constitiution allows for requiring a Concealed Handgun License for concealed carry – and I suspect that because of the different nature of concealed versus open carry, I think the US Constitution does as well.
So…. Unlicensed Open Carry is likely the Second Amendment Ideal, and Concealed Carry can probably be regulated.

Practical Application

Like several of the previous posters, someone standing behind me in the checkout line at HEB while carrying a pistol might be unsettling. We as citizens, have to expect that the bulk of the people we encounter are responsible and adhere to the social contract.

Think of a four-way stop sign in the boondocks – as 4 vehicles approach from different directions. Almost always, after stopping, the drivers will take turns passing through the intersection; they play fair and follow the rules. It is expected, and almost everyone does the right thing. – 4 way stops are in fact less collision prone than signalized ontersections. Open carry will generally function like that.

On the other hand, back at the HEB checkout line, if someone is behaving irresponsibly while standing behind me and he is open carrying, I can see a potential safety issue and remove myself from the vicinity. I see idiots on the Interstate every day – I just slow down and let them pass. Licensing drivers does not prevent Interstate idiots.

My research leads me to believe that it is likely that there is a real Second Amendment Right for Unregulated Open Carry. It stands to reason, then, if there is a real 2AD right to unregulated open carry , as a consequence, you and I must put up with the “Doofus factor” at HEB, just like they did in pre-1876 Texas. Occasionally, someone will be unintentionally injured by an armed doofus, and the victim will sue the snot out of the miscreant. The lawsuit is what reduces the proliferation of doofuses – not the legislature regulating the right away.

At any rate, “Accident waiting to happen” is a straw man; I expect such types of occurrences to be rare – after all, numerous states already have unregulated open carry- Virginia, Alaska, Indiana, Wyoming, New Mexico, and several others. Arizona also has unregulated open carry – how many accidents are there? Few, if any.

On the other hand, carrying a concealed sidearm offers more opportunities for error and accident – and I do not believe that some level of regulation is not Constitutionally permissible, based on the discussion above. It is not unreasonable to require that some minimum amount of training be a requirement for the “higher skill requirement” concealed carry, in a permissible “shall issue” environment.

As a firearms trainer, I encourage everyone to get training. I hope they take 5 classes from me, and 18 from Mas and his nationally-known brethren. I just do not believe it should be required for Unregulated Open Carry. An American has a civil right to the means of self-defense, even if you are poorly trained, or completely untrained. Your results will hopefully be better with training, but in a free society , free citizens get to use their own judgement in exercising their rights.

As usual, my thoughts.

Regards

GKT

@Ron: You said: “….. and don’t feel all warm n fuzzy with somebody behind me as I am in line at the super market fondling the trigger on the gun in their pocket.”

How do you know they are doing that?

The only people I know of that refer to fire arms owners as “gun fondlers” are anti’s that want to ban them.

@paul kersey: Excuse me if I don’t get all emotional about the death of an enemy soldier who engineered the deaths of my friends, brothers, and engineered the death and torture of his own countrymen after the war. I would no more commemorate the death of Che, Castro, Stalin, Mao or any other person that has used brutality, torture, and genocide to accomplish the enslavement of his own people.

The supremes “made it clear that the states can regulate the right” based on what authority may I ask?

Based only on the authority that they THINK the states SHOULD be able to regulate the right.

They’ve yet to actively discuss the phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” in any of their legal arguments. What exactly does that mean?

I submit that since the Supreme Court ruled the RKBA a fundamental, individual right in Heller v. D.C. and then applied/incorporated the 2A against the states in McDonald v. Chicago, that neither the federal NOR THE STATE government has ANY POWER to regulate or otherwise “infringe” upon the right and to do so would violate one or more of the following US Codes:

18 USC Sections 241, 242
42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986

On page 8, of the Heller decision, approx 3/4 way down page it plainly and clearly states:

” .. the 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms …”

Ooops. Now what?

Oh yea, I also take issue with your statement that the Supreme Court is the “final arbiter” of what rights the BoRs protect.

I strongly submit that WE THE PEOPLE are, in fact, the final arbiters.

Molon Labe.

I think I have to take issue with you, Ron. You seem to be of the opinion that since everyone else out there is stupider than you, they shouldn’t be allowed to carry without training. That’s exactly the attitude that is losing us our rights. People with power think they know better and everyone else it too stupid to live without the laws they make regulating our behavior “for our own good”. I live in a state that is shall issue with NO training requirements, and here again the blood doesn’t run in the streets. Imagine that. Even if you were right, though, and stupid people would carry guns and injure others, the correct response is to inflict the most SEVERE possible consequences on those individuals EVERY TIME that happens. The message would get out pretty fast that stupidity can be hazardous to your freedom. Would it make life more dangerous for a while? Maybe. Guess what? FREEDOM is a little less safe than tyranny sometimes. If you think ANYONE can be TRULY free without any cost or risk involved, perhaps that proves that those gun show folks aren’t the ones that really need an education to keep them from hurting their fellow citizens.

WOAH, wait a minute folks! Why are you guys carring guns at all?? Obama has a plan in place for that; you just call 911 on your free Obamaphone!

@paul kersey: Just curious whether that is your real name, or do you just strongly identify yourself with the “Death Wish”, series of Movies, by Charles Bronson?

Strange that the Constitution begins with the words “We the People,” and somehow that has become “thus sayeth the black robed tyrants” over the years. It is especially strange when one realizes that no where in the Constitution does it say that “the arbiter of Constitutional law in this country is the Supreme Court of the United States.” It just ain’t in there.

Of course the founders knew better: “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots… I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves…” Thomas Jefferson

Dennis:

I do not expect you to get emotional at the death of a tyrant like Vo Nguyen Giap. It is possible for a man to be morally evil and yet skillful. Hitler was evil, but he was pretty good at warfare, and he helped invent the most popular car in the world, the Volkswagen Beetle. Aren’t you curious to know how a tiny country like North Vietnam could defeat the U.S. military, even if it is done through politics more than firepower? Doesn’t it amaze you that these worthless, evil terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan constantly fight against us even though they know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield? They have guts, or maybe they are just stupid, but they keep on fighting us, like flies going after a dragon, and I have to admire that. If they have techniques which prevent us from achieving victory over them, then I want to know about those techniques. The Red Baron fought for the wrong side, but he was a skillful marksman. I can learn from skillful people, even when they are evil. Werner Von Braun, the Nazi scientist who invented V-2 rockets, also helped us go to the moon.

What did the British think of George Washington, who told his men to fight from behind trees, and load their muskets with buck and ball to increase wounds? Not very sporting. What do Southerners think of General Sherman? Maybe what he did was rough, but it got results. Should I mention what American Indians think about us palefaces? Read about “Wounded Knee.” That was a massacre. Vo Nguyen Giap wanted his people to be free and independent from China and the round-eyed French and Americans. Sounds sick, but I guess he was the George Washington of Vietnam.

Paul Edwards:

Paul Kersey is not my real name. I try to come up with a different name every time I post. It’s a fun game.

Hey Ron:

Maybe that dude was fondling something other than a gun in his pocket.

Were there any attractive women at the range that day?

Paul Kersey:

I really don’t know how to respond as your examples are problematic. North Viet Nam did not defeat the American military. Quiet the contrary, they never won any major battle. They did succeed in defeating the American will to continue an unpopular war. Giap’s tactics were basically sacrificing conscripted child soldiers in human wave attacks on American fire bases hoping to over run the position and secure a massacre. The conscripts were the warriors (willing or unwilling?), the guys behind them tweeting the whistles were the NVA officers making sure they knew they would be shot if they went any direction but forward. Giap’s massive casualty rate suffered by his own men were a testament to his tactics. Were his men as committed to communism as him. Maybe, maybe not.

You also seem to be confused by the difference between Washington’s Continental Army and the militia. The Continental Army fought by the accepted rules of battle current to the times. The militia or citizen soldier fought by the rule of survival learned from years of living in periods of conflict and friendship with the Indian and the French. Were these guerrilla tactics a surprise to the British? Probably not as they surely had faced this wherever they faced an armed population not protected by a standing army.

Interestingly, you mention present day terrorists and Gen. Sherman. Both targeted innocent non combatants. Had the south won the war, no doubt Sherman and possibly all of his officers would have been tried and executed as war criminals.

I won’t argue with you about the treatment of the American Indian or the atrocities committed by both sides in those years conflict. Yes, Wounded Knee was a massacre and atrocity, not much different than Sherman’s march to the sea.

If you believe that there are lessons to be learned from these “warriors”, you’re right. Some good, some bad. I chose not to ever try to emulate the tactics of evil no matter how effective they may be.

@ Paul Kersey…. or whomever you are said: “Paul Kersey is not my real name. I try to come up with a different name every time I post. It’s a fun game.”

It isn’t a fun “game” if you use a different name every time you post in the same blog such as this one.

” Paul Kersey”

I find it troubling that you use a pseudonym without openly acknowledging as such.

Posting as “Anonymous” allows readers to evaluate what you say with the knowledge that you have disconnected yourself from any consequences of your words – thats your right, of course, but honestly posting as “anonymous” is honest.

Posting as a fictional character that many people will not recognize, while morphing your persona with each post denies each participant in the discussion the benefit of honest discourse.

I hope you will reconsider your actions.

Greg Taggart

Dennis:

Thanks for your reply. You are definitely educated and knowledgeable. What goes through my head is this; in the 1940s, America (and our allies) defeated Italy, Germany and Japan ALL AT THE SAME TIME, IN THREE AND A HALF YEARS! And to top that off, we turned our enemies into our friends!

Fast forward to the 1960s, and America can’t even win a 10-year war against a small, third world country.

America was able to cause the death of Adolf Hitler in three and a half years. Today, with satellites in the air, and all kinds of wonder weapons and gizmo gadgets, it took us nine years to kill Usama Bin Laden, a man who was much more low-tech than Hitler was. What this tells me is that America cannot win a guerrilla war.

Now I do “what if?” scenarios. What if a crook comes to my door? I got that covered. What if my government becomes tryrannical? That is quite a problem. My small arms are VERY small arms in today’s world. But if I can master guerrilla warfare, then maybe I and others would have a chance against the remote possibility of our wonderful government becoming tyrannical sometime in the distant future. So, I look for answers.

Hanza:

I realize we take the topics Mas offers seriously, because they are serious. But I am a silly, fun-loving person. I have to think up a name for these posts. I enjoy the process of thinking up names, and try to see how many good ones I can come up with. Some might think I am being deceptive, but then, advertising and the Internet are deceptive by nature. If Mas tells me to always use the same name when I post here, I will do that. If he allows me to be creative, then I will be creative. I want to have fun! When I am running around like Rambo or Mad Max after Doomsday hits, then I will be serious all the time. Till then, I will have as much fun as I can.

Hey, at least I’m honest about using different names. I didn’t have to admit it. Truth is ugly, lies are beautiful, but I like the truth anyway.

Paul Kersey:

Finally we find common ground. When protecting my home or community from direct attack by those who would do my family, friends, or loved ones harm, all bets are off. Would I attack their innocent loved ones as a offensive or retaliatory strike, absolutely not. Would I use any tactic available to hunt down an enemy attacker to insure no future attack, you bet I would.

Your mental exercise only becomes problematic if you include the harm of innocents as a potential tactic. Your namesake in “Death Wish” did not kill for the sake of killing, he chose targets that chose him first.