Concealed Carry Of Weapons Superior To Taking Weapons: S.388, Part III

By John Longenecker

As I mentioned in previous comments on S. 388 (the nationwide concealed carry permit recognition bill introduced by U.S. Representative John Thune, R-S.D.) the very idea of carrying weapons made uniform nationwide can impeach the need for many social programs which are based on a theory of violence.

Could it all really happen?

Yes. Because most social programs are based on a lie, and impeaching the lie will starve them to death. The rest will take care of itself.

In sorting out the better objectives, understand that the right and left do not simply differ on how to approach the same goals: the liberty in America insist on the official’s living up to one’s oath of office, while the anti-liberty in America lure officials away from their oath of office.

S. 388 is a move in the right direction because it adheres to the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. S. 388 does so by restoring official respect for it and begins a journey to put it back the way it was.

Click 'Read More' to read the entire article.

But holding officials to their oath doesn’t go unpunished: it is the greatest source of attack on liberty enthusiasts as gun nuts, wild west, isolationist, anti-social and other wrong-headed perceptions in gun control which disarms the people a dozen ways.

Many impartial citizens don’t realize how – truly – the so-called liberty enthusiasts protect the entire nation from wherever they are by insisting on integrity from our officials everywhere they are.

The ills of American society – like the ills of Europe – are aggravated here by the brokering of unwelcome interference and largess programs unasked and based on so-called compassion, but which in reality feed a morbid hunger to make people dependent.

This is a transfer of wealth in our society.

Of course independence would naturally discredit these and reverse most attacks. In short, liberty can take care of itself.

You can see how the two benefits of meeting personal violence with your current lawful authority (having your weapon with you when you need it immediately to back your present legal authority to prevent a felony) and thereby continuously discrediting national social dependency based on such unanswered violence are inextricable. Carrying a weapon is a constant safeguard not only against personal grave danger, but against policies brokering dependency in the name of necessity.

This is why the second amendment is impervious to ordinary due process. It prevents a takeover of the United States by rhetoric.

Meanwhile, we have a sad but vitally important case study out of Fox News.

Fox News and FoxNews.com report that in Marianna, Florida, the wife of the Sheriff John McDaniel was killed at home.

Mellie McDaniel was in phone contact with her husband precisely at the time she was being followed home from shopping and saw someone pull in the driveway, reportedly, and she was in what we call reasonable apprehension of immediate danger. Her husband the Sheriff sent officers Code Three. By the time they were 10-97 – reportedly within two minutes – Mellie McDaniel was already deceased. One of the deputies responding, officer Harold Altman, was killed. Mrs. McDaniel had been murdered in the moments among her recognition of the problem, her request for aid and the arrival of assets.

Condolences, Sheriff McDaniel, on the loss of your wife. Condolences to your entire community.

More facts will emerge, but will they change the truth and object lesson value of the case?

Police do a great job and their reason for entering law enforcement meets with a great deal of satisfaction, I’m informed. Average citizens enter the career to enjoy it on a number of levels – in applied technology and real science, in investigation, in team approach, in protection of the public, in the general administration of justice, in making a real contribution, and more.

But its not all Code Three, and law enforcement itself acknowledges that it has no mandate to protect individuals. It’s not broadcast, but it’s not a secret.

On top of that, they simply cannot always arrive within a life-saving response time. It is just not possible.

According to the annual survey of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs 2007 conducted by the Fraternal Order Of Police, your officers do not oppose concealed carry and ownership of guns as portrayed by the anti-gun movement.

Surprised? It’s not unusual to politically try to divide allies. And understand that gun owners and police are not foes, but allies. Why give law enforcement the unreasonable burden of enforcing unreasonable gun laws against their supporters?

It’s also a practical and tactical reality for any head of household planning household safety in anticipation of an eventual encounter with criminal violence. Anywhere you are in America – anywhere – you’re still precious to your family. And you are a sovereign citizen of the United States.

This is the importance of S. 388 right off the bat: it recognizes your citizen right and your personal sovereignty. Further, S. 388 recognizes your authority. The immediacy of someone’s carrying his own weapon wherever he goes is a moral imperative.

Where concealed carry prevents crime from being an excuse to impose destructive, counter-intuitive social change, it is not the job of Congress to impose gun laws, but to protect rights and avoid such laws, with personal sovereignty superior to takings. S. 388 moves in that direction and is therefore more pro-American – more pro-people, more pro-family, more pro-community, more patriotic – than any gun law could be. It begins to put it back the way it was.

S. 388 should also expand where one can carry, including churches, schools, all public buildings, airports and civil aircraft, places presently designated defenseless zones. Anywhere police can be summoned, citizens should carry simply because police derive their very authority from the people. It’s not the liberty nuts committing the crimes.

[With the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report showing that armed citizens stop a crime more than 2.5 million times a year, the armed citizen is the unseen security of a community. That security was put there.]

Why not make this nationwide?

Let’s get real: let’s get optimistic: repealing all gun laws will impeach in big box bulk lots the silly and ineffectual social programs built on the lie of handling violence – and which never did any good. Of course they didn’t.

Can it really unwind these? Is this the real purpose of gun control?

Let’s find out.

Support S. 388 not only for the carrying of personal weapons in personal authority and in the affirmation of your other rights, but also because the very carrying of weapons will impeach the need for social programs written on the promise of stopping violence that only you can stop.

Related Stories:
Concealed Carry of Weapons Superior To Taking Weapons, S. 388: Part I
Concealed Carry of Weapons Superior To Taking Weapons, S. 388: Part II

John Longenecker’s book, Transfer of Wealth: The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry is in its Second Edition and it would make a great gift for the non-gun owner. You can purchase his book at Transfer of Wealth. You can also read other articles by John Longenecker here.