Right to Self-Protection
Kevin Smith’s column “How Do Guns in Restaurants Help?” (March 20) cries out for — demands — a response.
Of course I’m biased. I think that the Second Amendment applies everywhere, meaning that citizens have the right to bear arms. I also recognize that many citizens interpret that constitutional amendment as relating only to militia/military, i.e., military forces. But I don’t want to get into that argument. I do want to get into the tenor and underlying premises of Smith’s column.
Smith exudes his unstated opinion of gun owners as lacking judgment, or common sense. In his article, gun owners have hair triggers, can’t hold their beer, and obviously are deranged.
But it strikes me that he has decided that law-abiding citizens who attend a daylong education and training course, including live-fire instruction, pose a threat to the public. Also, many such prepared citizens participate in advanced training sessions on the law, safety and self-protection.
Those who obtain concealed carry permits have only one objective: to protect themselves and their families wherever they are. Unfortunately, the gun laws of North Carolina essentially vitiate the Second Amendment. The criminals, of course, haven’t attended classes or obtained a license, nor do they care whom they rob, rape, maim or kill.
So, Mr. Smith, get off the “well-regulated militia” argument. The operative argument is the right of citizens to bear arms. Our world today is decidedly different from decades past; what’s not different is that there are evil people to be confronted. And as that old saying goes, and is still true, “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”
By the way, have you heard the newer definition of a gun owner? It’s a liberal who’s been mugged.
Michael J. MacDonald
More like this story