How 'bout a little political indoctrination with that gun permit?
Gee, who knew you would get so much more than gun training at local handgun permitting classes?
I don't believe there was a single Democrat among us. Given how most of the conversation went that day, if there were, they very wisely kept their own counsel.
We were also reminded of how and why the Revolutionary War started ... it was not about tea, taxes or liberty, but about guns. The British, in an attempt to quell rebellions over tea, taxes and liberty, took to confiscating the colonists' guns and ammunition. It was that action the finally goaded the colonists from passive rebellion to armed insurrection to defend their liberties and the way of life they wished to live.
Our current presidential administration would be wise to reacquaint itself with American history before taking any more steps towards our guns or other freedoms, and We The People would be wise to be ready to defend our liberties as our founding fathers once did, because our current administrations has thus far proven itself to be anything but wise.
(Surely, local gun permit instructors aren't encouraging political paranoia or armed insurrection against the government, are they?)
And here is a question asked honestly and open-mindedly about the whole gun permitting issue: the blogger I quote above is talking about how she and her fiance, a very articulate local gun-blogger, recently attended a handgun carry permit class together. But her fiance has already blogged about carrying his handgun. What am I missing here? I welcome a clearer explanation from those of you who know more about the technicailities of handgun carry permits than I do on who can carry a handgun, and when, and what permits are actually required in which circumstances. Educate me (but not about the American Revolution, thanks. I've already got that covered.).
Again, I am asking this question with respect, and I am not suggesting anything improper. I am just legitimately curious as to what the rules say. When do you actually have to have a permit and when do you not? If you can have a handgun without the carry permit, why would you get licensed?
Comments
Surely, local gun permit instructors aren't encouraging political paranoia or armed insurrection against the government
No, but local gun bloggers are, as always, insinuating that Democrats who open their mouths are likely to get shot while in their company:
I don't believe there was a single Democrat among us. Given how
most of the conversation went that day, if there were, they very wisely
kept their own counsel.
Wow. Since when is American history considered to be "indoctrination"? And no, sorry, you do not have a complete education on the American Revolution at all. Nor do you have the slightest grasp of what the lesson is here.
Those who do not study history are
doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana
You are either ignorant of history, or you are feigning it, so you can have a platform from which you launch this latest of mean, spiteful, petty, hateful attacks against Rich and me. No wonder newspapers are going belly up left and right, if this is what passes for journalistic ethics and integrity these days.
Sorry that you can't form a cogent refutation of the points Rich and
I make in debate against yours. Put on your big girl pants, and deal
with it like a grown up. When we prove you wrong on a point, you are
welcome to prove us wrong on ours. That's the way it works. If you
can't, so what? That's what this whole blog discussion thing is about.
If you can't deal with that, without launching libelous and defamatory
personal attacks against your commenters and their families, to include
baby grandchildren, well maybe this is just too much for you after all,
you think?
@The Pullet Surprise - your contribution here is so laughably idiotic that I almost had to let it stand as a testament to your ignorance. But I just had to point out one thing: You are confusing the reaction of conservatives to a dissenting voice with the reaction of liberals. Had there been a liberal Democrat at this class and had they spoken up to debate some point of 2nd Amendment rights or anything from a liberal point of view, he or she would have been met with a calm discussion of the facts. They would have been allowed to keep their opinion, but they would have been shown why they were wrong.
Yes, I understand that is not the way liberal do it. They just ban those who would disagree, shout them down or otherwise shut them up. Liberals are not interested in the truth, they only believe in free speech if it agrees with their agenda.
Try to keep it straight, OK?
Here's the interesting thing. Katie knows me, and knows how to get in touch with me. She has at least two of my email addresses, and at one time my phone number. With a minimum amount of effort, she could have contacted me with her curiosity. Instead, she implied very publicly that I might be carrying a weapon illegally.
If this were the first instance of her making accusations without doing a basic amount of research, I might pass it off as an accident, or simply laziness. But earlier, she accused me of failing to live up to standard journalistic ethics, again without ever contacting me or my editor to get the basic facts about the situation.
Once is an accident, twice is a pattern.
To set the record straight, something required far too often when dealing with some journalists, the post Katie linked discussed two separate events, taking my new pistol to the range for the first time, and evaluating a new holster.
I had a TN HCP but had allowed it to expire months before, mostly because of a philosophical debate reconciling my duty as a Christian with my duty as an American. During that period of internal deliberation, I stopped carrying a weapon, and allowed my permit to expire.
To be perfectly honest, procrastination also played a part.
Eventually, I reconciled my beliefs, and decided to reapply for a HCP. At the same time, I upgraded both my weapon and my carry holster, since I wasn't very happy with my first one. While waiting for my carry class, I started wearing the holster around the house, to find the best positioning for comfort, security, and access, and to allow the leather to break in. However, when transporting my pistols to the range, they were stored in a case, locked and unloaded, with the ammunition stored separately, going above and beyond the requirements of the applicable laws.
Like I said, Katie could have easily found this out with an email or a phone call, but instead she chose to go public.
Why?
As to the first part of her post, it's interesting how teaching historical background of the Second Amendment is considered political indoctrination. It is historical fact that the final provocation that led to armed rebellion was the British attempt to capture the weapons stored in Lexington and Concord, weapons which belonged to private citizens. It is also historical fact that the Second Amendment, as was the case with most of the Bill of Rights, was written to limit the power of a centralized government to trample on the liberties of free men. The men who had so recently fought for freedom were determined not to allow another tyrannical government to rule over them again.
The construction of the Second Amendment makes this clear.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's take it piece by piece.
A well regulated Militia,
Regulated in this context does not refer to rules, regulations and laws, but referred to effective functioning. In this usage, well regulated means well trained and equipped. In other words, the members of the militia must have weapons and experience in using them.
being necessary to the security of a free State,
Note that State is capitalized. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, Americans had a deep distrust of a strong centralized government. (From the perspective of our current situation, we can only say they were right to be afraid.) Americans of the time, and this is born out by historical documents, were citizens of their home State first, and of the United States second. The capitalization of State indicates that each State considered itself to be Sovereign over its own affairs, and that State's Rights superseded the authority of the Federal Government, unless that State specifically ceded those rights to the central government. This state of affairs is documented by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
This begs the question, why would a Sovereign State need a militia to provide security? Who is the enemy? Let's ask Noah Webster:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
Not only was the militia called on to defend the people against foreign enemies, but against usurpation by force by a centralized government.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No explanation needed.
Put the whole thing together, and the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution as a right for individuals to keep and bear arms to act as a force to protect against the loss of liberty, whether that loss came at the hands of foreign threats or domestic.
This is history, not paranoia.
Now then, Katie asks why this would be discussed at a hand gun carry class.
Are you kidding me? Have you read the papers lately?
Despite the recent Heller decision by the Supreme Court that said that the Second Amendment does apply to the people individually, the Obama Administration is already working to effectively repeal the Second Amendment. In February, Attorney General Eric Holder, who filed a brief opposing the Heller decision, told reporters that Obama would seek to renew and make permanent the Assault Weapons Ban, despite the fact that there is no credible evidence that the ban reduced crime by the slightest degree.
Why bring back a law that restricts the rights of the people but has no benefit, such as the reduction of crime?
Sadly, in a time when our rights under the Constitution are under full blown attack, part of learning how to carry a gun to defend yourself is learning how to defend your right to carry the gun in the first place. Frankly, I want people to be better informed, and I'm surprised to find a journalist taking the other side of the argument.
More information is better than less, and I automatically distrust any person, business, or agency that seeks to limit the free flow of information. The Soviet Union demonstrated that the way to control a man is to control the information he is allowed to have. As Robert Heinlein said:
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.
To find a paid journalist arguing against providing historical context of our rights is probably one of the most disturbing signs of the collapse of modern journalism.
Rich:
You and Lissa blogged about this stuff. That's the forum in which you set up the discussion. Thus, I continued the discussion in the same forum: via blogging.
What did I need to call you and ask you? I was (and am) legitimately curious why a gun blogger would need a carry permit if he or she is already carrying. What are the advantages of having the permit?
I remain curious.
Katie
You're a journalist. Or at least that is what you tell us. Surely you have resources available to you, such as the internet, or colleagues, that could explain to you what the state law is regarding handgun carry and for what situations one would need a permit. Rich already explained this above, but here it is again ... and I am typing slowly so you can keep up.
A person needs a handgun carry permit in order to legally carry a loaded handgun in public.
Rich has NOT done so. He has carried the UNloaded gun, packed inside of its case, for the purpose of transporting it to another privately owned location (firing range) where he then unpacked it from its case, loaded it with bullets and proceeded to practice shooting. One does not need a permit to do this.
He has also carried the gun in its holster, upon his person while on his own private property. This also does not require a permit.
Again, had you taken a few minutes to do what most other journalists
do - research your topic and carefully consider what you are about to
publish, you would have had your question answered. You would have also
avoided making a groundless accusation or insinuation of wrong-doing or
illegal activity by my husband. But I think this was less about your
ignorance on the topic, and more about defaming him and perhaps even
causing him legal difficulties. I hope your research notes are in
order.
just another liberal journalist pushing an agenda. . . Why do folks expect facts from them any more? And they wonder why the main stream media is not trusted any more and print news is dying. . . .
"Rich already explained this above, but here it is again ... and I am typing slowly so you can keep up."
Heh, pwned.
