- Messages
- 102
- Reactions
- 33
<broken link removed>
Just when i though i was done being angry for a while, i find this. I'm working on a response to this and i hope you'll do the same. Here's my rough, rough draft:
I don't even address most of the article, but i like getting to the heart of the matter.
Just when i though i was done being angry for a while, i find this. I'm working on a response to this and i hope you'll do the same. Here's my rough, rough draft:
The sheriff has no choice in who gets a concealed handgun license, as Oregon is a shall-issue state. That means you don't have to be some kind of "friend of the sheriff" just to be able to lawfully carry a weapon concealed, and that's the way it should be. If you pass the requirements, you are granted the PRIVILEGE of exercising what was once the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
The idea of licensing a right is nothing more than an attack on my sovereignty as an individual. By whose authority can i not carry a weapon in defense of my own life? Last i checked, my life is my property and my responsibility. Whose business is it if i put a gun on my hip and if my jacket might happen to hide it? If you want less-philosophical arguments, what's the point of licensing something that can not be controlled? You can't stop bad men from getting guns, you can't stop them from carrying them. Maybe a few hot-heads who care what the law says will be disarmed by licensing, but i'd rather live in a society where we are born with rights than a one where we are granted privileges.
Oh, and using the phrase "to pack heat" makes one sound out-of-touch.
I don't even address most of the article, but i like getting to the heart of the matter.