29 Nov 13
Comments from a colleague un PA:
“There is a false pretense of ‘safety,’ vainly imagined by
business/government entities, in justifying the restriction of gun-carrying by those of
us needing to enter buildings or areas in the normal conduct of our daily
business.
These irrational gun-phobes can’t possibly justify the position that they
need all others, even those duly licensed by the State, to be continuously
unarmed, for dubious and ill-defined ‘safety rationales’ that they can’t
even rationally articulate. It comes down to requiring employees and patrons
to go unarmed, solely for the alleged ‘mental comfort’ of the
establishment’s officials, in order to maintain their delusions of ‘safety’ provided
by a so-called ‘gun-free zone.’
They are addicted to a demonstrably erroneous philosophy, and, like addicts
everywhere, they’re in denial and don’t want their addiction disturbed.
Personal arrogance and vanity won’t permit them to repent. And, they’re
apparently willing to endanger innocent people in a effort to maintain this
continuous, personal delusion. In short, they insist we all involuntarily
join their gaggle of personal ‘enablers.’
How can their irrational, personal preference to be always far distant from
any species of gun automatically supercede another’s individual’s right
to reasonably provide for his own protection?
Of course, many of us refuse to be intimidated by these aboulic,
pseudo-sanctimonious bullies, and have audaciously decided to put our own safety,
and the safety of those with us, above arbitrary ‘rules’ capriciously thrown
around our places of travel, places of work, even parking lots. We’ve
balanced risks, made our decision, and don’t apologize!
However, many other good people succumb to this strong-arm intimidation,
due to the threat of losing their jobs, being socially ‘ostracized,’ or
arrested. By paying heed to ‘gun-free zone’ signs, they make the routine
concealed carrying of guns virtually impossible for themselves, because it
requires constantly taking their gun off, and then trying to figure-out how to
adequately secure it in the interim. There is often no satisfactory way to
do it, and such excessive (and unnecessary) gun-handling exacerbates the
chances the gun being inadvertently displayed, even of NDs.
Has no one ever prevailed in court, asserting that they were harmed by
being arbitrarily deprived of their ability to reasonably protect themselves,
by an entity that subsequently failed them by providing inadequate
protection, an entity that said, in effect, ‘We will provide you with no protection,
and we simultaneously will not permit you to provide yourself with any?'”
Comment: We need good, legal attacks to put these gun-phobes on the
defensive. I’m pursuing this with good attorneys, but we have to get the word
out.
They have no right to insist that our lives are not important!
“Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion, without the discomfort of
thought.”
JF Kennedy
/John
