In this country we have a Constitution and amendments. They are fundamental protections, freedoms, and rights. They are the law of the land. Yet a city counsel member thought he had the right to treat a citizen with disdain and disrespect merely for exercising his Constitutionally protected freedom:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKpLhNiC8zg?rel=0&w=420&h=315]
that politician’s attitude is dangerous, and it is a greater threat to citizens of this country than the gun this citizen was carrying.
Even more dangerous are the attitudes of those citizens who don’t see a problem with politicians (and citizens) who imagine that we exist to serve the government rather than the other way around, who don’t understand that politicians who don’t respect the Constitution also don’t respect our freedom.
But there was more to the story:
A group of 160 citizens, many if not most of whom were armed, confronted government officials Tuesday who had attempted to have a wounded Army veteran kicked out of a meeting due to the fact that he carried a gun. The veteran has a state license for concealed carry, which means that he was carrying the gun to the meeting within the boundaries of the law.
The story of the incident, which occurred at a city council meeting in Oak Harbor, Wash., made national news three weeks ago.
But Tuesday evening the citizens of Oak Harbor, Wash. showed up to confront its city council and demand that the council rescind a local ordinance prohibiting guns from being carried on public property. The citizens also wished to show their support for Lucas Yonkman, the Army veteran who showed up at the previous meeting armed.
One citizen told the council that if the fact that citizens who are merely exercising their right to keep and bear arms intimidates city officials, then they need to look within to determine why the rights of the people are so intimidating to them.
My husband has a concealed carry permit. Our kids shoot. So do their friends.
13 y.o. girl with gun, pretty in pink
15 Comments
Are you all part of a well regulated militia?
All Americans are supposed to stand ready to defend their liberties and be a part of that well regulated militia. Not everybody who owned a gun in the days when the Constitution was established were active members of the military, but their right to own guns was well understood, well recognized, and well accepted. It still is, and legally, that can only change by amending the Constitution.
It’s the “well regulated” bit which confuses me. It’s there in the 2nd amendment, which people like to quote, but whenever any sort of regulation is suggested, there appears to be mass resistance!
As you know, I’ve cancelled a trip to the States because following Sandy Hook and the information that has come out since, I’ve realized that there are just no gun-free areas in the US where I can safely take my children.
I absolutely recognize your right to have your guns, but why is there nowhere for those who don’t want to have guns to be free of them? Even in Dodge City they used to make the cowboys check their guns with the sheriff; but I think there would be an uproar if anyone suggested that now!
Random answers in no special order:
There are gun-free areas in the U.S, legally speaking- D.C., for instance. Chicago. Of course, the fact that you can’t carry a weapon there legally doesn’t mean there are no guns, especially since this country is not an island. In fact, they tend to be the most dangerous cities. As a point of fact, it is illegal to have a gun within a certain distance of any school already. If you get a flat tire or your car breaks down as you are driving past a school and a cop spots your hunting rifle in the trunk or back seat, you’ve become a felon. Didn’t stop the school shootings, though.
the mere existence of guns is not a danger. Your children and you are quite safe in the vast majority of the U.S., especially in those areas where the Constitution is respected. You seem to have believed a lot of propaganda about guns and the danger of having a second amendment like ours. Switzerland also permits gun ownership and has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Are you afraid to go there?
And your question is basically, “Why isn’t there somewhere in the U.S. where the Constitution is irrelevant if I want it to be?” Isn’t the answer to that obvious? It’s a guaranteed freedom, a Constitutionally protected right. That means a lot. You don’t get to take away people’s constitutionally protected freedoms without following the proper legal steps and definitely not because of an irrational fear of a tool. Knives, drugs, and cars each kill more people than guns each year. Is it rational to demand that there be somewhere that is knife or car free for those of us who wish to be free of them?
The well regulated bit is, I think, quite clear. The point is that citizens are already armed so that when there is a need for a militia, it can be called up instantly, armed and battle-ready. Like Switzerland.
We have plenty of gun regulations already- we’ve long had to register all our firearms. We have to apply for concealed weapons permits and the application requires a background check. Not just anybody can get one. The regulations that people object to so strongly are those that are clearly intended to be a further step toward a complete breach of the 2nd amendment, or, as with the recent efforts, they are so stupidly and ignorantly written that it’s not even clear what sort of thing they are outlawing because the people attempting to write the regulations do not even know what they are trying to outlaw other than things that go bangy.
“when there is a need for a militia, it can be called up instantly, armed and battle-ready. ”
When might that be? Genuinely curious. Supplement to the National Guard?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/m-why_leftists_should_fully_support_the_second_amendment.html
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
Hello Headmistress! Back again! Sorry, had to go make a cake (very rude to walk away in the middle of a conversation!)!
Right; again random points/random order.
The Switzerland comparison; since 2007 the servicemen and ex-service men who have their state-issued weapon in their homes do not have any ammunition, which makes the majority of guns in Swiss homes about as dangerous as rolling pins! You can hit someone with it, but only after you’ve got it out of it’s secure gun safe, and you probably have something bigger and heavier to hand anyway! Only a VERY few rapid response team members are allowed to keep ammunition in their homes. It must be a sealed box kept in a secure, locked, place separate from the firearm, and this is checked regularly. For these service members, and prior to 2007, it is a VERY serious offence to use any of your ammunition in an unauthorized way. Also, to lose or damage your state-issued firearm is very serious, so they tend to stay in locked gun safes until people need them to take them to the barracks for training.
Quick question, how long do your gun licenses last for? I think in Canada it’s five years? In UK it’s five years, but they do spot checks within that time. A friend of mine had not stored his shotguns securely enough, so he lost his license, and his guns.
And are they for the guns, or the individual?
Okay, I understand your point about a guaranteed freedom being available everywhere. But I also believe people have a right to smoke tobacco and view pornography, and yet there are places I can go to if I don’t want to do these things or be around people doing these things. I don’t think that because an area has a no-smoking policy, it is infringing people’s Constitutional rights. Surely, it just means that they can’t do it right there, even if they have the right to do it somewhere else?
Knives and drugs and cars DO kill more people, but they have a constructive purpose, which has the side effect of sometimes being deadly. A gun is purely destructive.
But again, if I’m in a shopping centre/mall, I wouldn’t expect to see a car driving around. I could avoid cars by staying in pedestrian areas. Many nightclubs over here (well, in big cities) have metal detectors precisely to stop people bringing in knives, (I know because I once had to check in a belt I was wearing that had a big chunky buckle). I don’t know if this is the case in the States? I don’t tend to go to those kind of bars these days!
I haven’t read the legislation that they are attempting to pass, so I can’t debate that point with you. It just seems that every State has such different laws and regulations that it would surely be better to correlate the legislation a little better? Some States seem to have lots of regulations surrounding gun control, and others virtually none!
Also, if there is a need for a militia (and if you feel you are part of one), who would the commanding officers be? Surely for that argument to stand up, all the gun owners would have to be drilling and training together regularly, no?
Also, it’s just occurred to me, how can you have armed guards in schools (like they did at Columbine) if it’s illegal to have firearms within a certain radius of school?
You say that my children and I would be safe in the vast majority of the US; but then so many people who I speak to who have guns say that they need them because of either the wild animals, the bad guys, or the fact that they live too far out for the emergency services to reach them, or they don’t have (or don’t trust) the police force. So, I find it hard to reconcile the safety that people assure me of, with their need to have deadly weapons in their homes.
There’s so much about this issue that I find hard to understand!
They didn’t have armed guards at Columbine until after the shooting. My cousin attended and was there during the shooting. I think they do now, but I’m not sure.
As for the rest of it, just because someone keeps a gun (or guns) does not mean that they are evil. It also does not mean that they are going to shoot you if they decide they don’t like you. Frankly, the inferrence is a little offensive. Most people in America are law abiding citizens, and murder, mayhem, and all the rest is against the law.
Thank You, Kara. But some schools do have armed guards, don’t they?
I wouldn’t presume to suggest that because someone keeps a gun, they are evil. Anymore than I would suggest that someone who smokes or views pornography is evil.
But if you, for example, choose to have a venomous snake or spider in your house as a pet; then it stands to reason that your chances of being bitten and poisoned are higher than those of people who don’t have venomous pets. I don’t blame the animals, they are God’s creatures, too. But accidents happen.
I have a friend who is very interested in radioactivity, his garage is full of radioactive materials. He’s a nice guy, but I don’t go round to his house much!
A gun is an inanimate object that has many constructive and useful purposes. Our guns have protected our livestock from wild dogs and put food on the table, as well as provided hours of recreational enjoyment target shooting. I grew up with guns in my house. We have had guns in our house for 20 years of our marriage. No accidents have ever happened. That’s fifty years of family gun ownership with not a single injury.
Owning a gun is not remotely similar to a poisonous snake, to smoking, viewing pornography, or having radioactive materials, and it is not possible to have a rational conversation on the topic with somebody who does not understand that.
The only thing left that I have to add to the discussion is that these shootings have occurred where either civillians are not allowed to have guns (schools, courthouses, even military installations), or where there would be a large gathering of people who are not likley to have a gun (movie theaters, political rallies).
Re: “gun licenses”
There is no such thing as a “gun license” on the federal level in the U.S. (aside from a few specialized situations, like owning a fully automatic machine gun, or if you want to be a retail dealer). Some states (like Illinois, I believe) effectively require a license to own a firearm, but most do not. In my state of Tennessee, there is no such thing as gun registration. You can legally own guns, and buy/sell with other individuals without anybody even knowing about it. Our state does require a permit to actually carry a gun in public, and that permit is tied to the person, not any particular weapon or type of weapon. There are a few states where the right to carry is more absolutely recognized, where no permit is required. Generally, businesses can prohibit the carrying of firearms in their premises, if you were really frightened of shopping or eating a meal in the presence of a particular kind of inanimate object.
You are correct that there is a complex patchwork of conflicting state laws. This makes it harder for a gun owner making out-of-state trips to know what’s legal as they pass through other jurisdictions. If the Constitution were respected and followed, this wouldn’t be a problem.
P.S. Guns *do* have a constructive purpose.
Mr Yonkman is a bit of a local celebrity right now.
Here’s the link from the local paper:
http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/190074131.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wntall+%28All+Stories+-+Whidbey+News+Times%29
Sorry, I don’t know how to turn it into a real link.
There’s more at play than just this, though. There is a group of people who are anti-military in general, anti-Navy to be specific. Unfortunatley, the councilman was probably prepared to dismiss the veteran just because of his veteran status.
Anyway, I hope this adds to the discussion.
Not many can say this, but I’m from Oak Harbor! So proud of my fellow islanders.