Jerry Brown vs. Leroy Brown

Well, thanks to Jerry Brown, I think I’m going to start openly carrying an unloaded shotgun with me…though I would not have openly carried a weapon before today.  It is my constitutional right to be able to do so.  If you willingly let people take your rights away, you don’t deserve any.

http://news.yahoo.com/gov-signs-bill-banning-open-carry-handguns-003438967.html

Brown passed a bill banning open carry of unloaded handguns in California.  I think carrying openly is irresponsible anyway, loaded or unloaded, but it takes away your rights none the less.  And though California is a concealed carry state, Los Angeles county will virtually not allow you to get a CCW unless you blow (read: suck the dick of) the chief of police or a judge that has the power to grant one.  So basically, you no longer have a right to bear arms as the Constitution affords, in much of California.  Criminals are not unarmed with these tactics, you only turn average citizens, who take responsiblity for their own self defense and preservation, INTO criminals.  Increasing the sentence on committing a crime while armed, seems to target the right people.

There’s another guy named Dallas Stout, president of the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that said one of the stupidest fucking things I’ve heard  “By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante”  That is just fucking stupid.  1) we are talking about unloaded open carry handguns at this point…not loaded weapons at all.  2)You have to take a test and pass a handgun safety course in California before being able to purchase your handgun, so people ARE screened on how to use their guns.  Maybe not on their aim, target selection or tactical skills, but screeened none the less.  3) How often are people really shot by vigilantes trying to take down criminals, as opposed to being shot by criminals???  I think it is fucking stupid to be afraid of vigilantes more than criminals.  4)  People are only carrying openly as a statement due to the existing gun laws, otherwise they would most likely carry concealed with no need to express their constitutional rights openly, and only worry about the self defense aspects of carrying a weapon.  5)  People who carry concealed tend to realize that others may also be carrying and are much less likely to provoke any trouble at all, also feeling they have a much higher level of responsibility to hold themselves to, since they are carrying a weapon.  Criminals don’t care about any of these.  They care about things like risk/reward for the crime.  If they shoot one person, they shoot everyone because they are already going to do maximum time, they reduce risk by killing any witnesses.  People just don’t understand the dynamic and punish the people by taking away their rights to protect themselves.  They assume you are guilty until proven innocent.

“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.”  There is no ambiguity in this statement.  The only people who will suggest there is any ambiguity are the groups who wish to take away the freedoms of that ‘State’ and it even goes so far as to say a Militia : ( 1. A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.  2. A military force that engages in rebel activities.) is necessary to protect that freedom.  They had just fought the British to gain a free “State” from them, you can be damn certain they were trying to make sure the people had the ability to rise up against a corrupt government should it ever happen again.

There is no misunderstanding in the statement, the only misunderstanding is in what is or is not a corrupt government requiring the people to fight to regain their freedoms.

Frankly, I’m getting fucking tired of being told what I can or cannot do, if I am not otherwise commiting what is an actual crime, and not one of these psuedo crimes that make you guilty of something because people ‘assume’ if you have some resource you will then use it to commit a crime.  I could save a life with a gun, I could take a life with a pencil.  It is the intent, and not the tool, that dictates the outcome.  Police want to disarm society because they are scared to do their jobs.  Government wants to disarm society because they are scared the people will rebel when they are not doing their jobs in line with the will of the people.  Criminals want to disarm society because it makes crime fucking easy.  If police are scared, and the risk truly becomes higher, then by all means we should pay them more for their service and taking that risk.  If the police aren’t scared of the people to some degree, then they have too much power.  There needs to be balance, not dominance, or else someone is losing their rights somewhere.