Yes. I opened a can of worms. I posted the following on Facebook. "Ok. These folks that want to push this "open carry" issue have got my attention. I don't agree with them. The last thing this society needs is more people packing heat. How would you like to live in a society where someone could draw and shoot you if they were drunk, high or menopausal?"Except I disagree for one reason, the people that are shooting people for your reasons are going to be the people that have their guns illegally. The people that go about it the proper way by getting licensed, are not going to ruin their life by doing stupid things. They value their rights and spend their time and money to do it legal and are not going to just shoot someone. I used to be licensed in MN and when you go through the process, you respect it and don't want to lose it. I value my rights and will not sit back and let people that are afraid like you try to take them away from me. What's next, will we have to license our kitchen knives because someone used one once to stab someone?"
Regarding: "The people that go about it the proper way by getting licensed, are not going to ruin their life by doing stupid things." People who are drunk, high, mentally ill, under extreme duress for any reason, often do things that are illogical or "stupid" if you will. Are you trying to make a case that anybody who goes through the process of getting a license for a gun would not dare to ever drink too much or use drugs? Is there any test that can be devised that would guarantee that a person carrying a loaded handgun would not mistakenly shoot it in such a way as to harm another person? Guns give a human the ability to very quickly end the life of another human or injure that person in an instant. If more people are allowed to carry HANDguns, then still more people will feel it is also necessary to carry a gun for "protection". The more guns there are, the more accidents there will be. The more guns their are the more children will find them. The more guns there are, the more people will do tragic things with them whether these are licensed guns or licensed people. There is no way to take the "human element" out of this equation.
Now about your rights: Patrick said: "I value my rights and will not sit back and let people that are afraid like you try to take them away from me." While I have this male thing that makes my emotions swell when somebody accuses me of being afraid, I can admit that, yes, I am afraid. I do not want my loved ones, my children, my grandchildren or anybody to have to live in a society where weapons are carried routinely by citizens exercising their rights. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States to the effect that citizens have the UNFETTERED RIGHT to carry a weapon troubles me for two reasons. First of all, the authors of the Constitution were fearful that the British would try to come and re-claim their new country. The only way they could defend themselves was the same way they had won their independence. This was by citizen-soldiers who carried rifles. Today, citizen soldiers with rifles will not protect us from our NATIONAL enemies. Second, even if the constitution currently gives the right to "bear arms", the Constitution can be changed. IF the courts interpret the Constitution as giving US citizens the right to carry HANDGUNS then I would join the side which would seek to AMEND the Constitution. It has been Amended before and it will be again.
The NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, in my opinion, continues to pursue an agenda that says to its members, "ANY restriction WHATEVER on the use of any kind of firearm is a dilution of our rights and is to be fought with all of our might."Thus, those who belong to the NRA will fight laws that seek to restrict things like submachine guns. These guns allow criminals to possess more firepower than police with predictable results. Restricting these weapons would not keep these weapons totally out of the hands of criminals. I know that. But laws against them would make it harder for criminals to hide them, import them, and use them. It would also make it easier to put them in prison for longer periods of time.
I'm not against people owning guns for hunting or target shooting. I do think that the types of guns should be restricted by law. You want to hunt with a handgun? Fine! Keep it locked unless you are in a place where wild things live. If you want to carry a gun in public, I have no problem as long as you keep a trigger lock on it until you are in a place where you are authorized to use it, like a rural area where hunting is legal or a firing range. If you are found with an unlocked HANDGUN outside of an authorized LOCATION then your weapon should be confiscated and you should be jailed or fined to an extent that would deter you from doing so again. Firearms that allow you to fire in such a way that they can puncture standardized vests worn by police or in a repeating fashion should be restricted to licensed collectors and even then be required to be disabled so as not to allow them being fired.
I know my brother has guns including handguns. I love my brother very much and do not mean to mess with his pleasure. I trust him because I know him. I have never seen his handgun(s?) and hope I never do.
So, yes, if I walk into a restaurant in Sheboygan and notice people at the bar carrying handguns, I'm probably going to leave. I don't fear guns. I fear people with guns. I will continue to express my opinion against the proliferation of guns and support laws that restrict guns and ammunition. If you have any evidence that may change my mind, I welcome your input. I am just a man and, as such, am often poorly educated and lacking in experience. I promise to try to keep a mind that is open enough to listen to you and a spirit that respects you no matter what your opinions are.
I wish you peace, Patrick, and welcome your thoughts.
Ciao, babies!
