Missouri’s house and senate have passed a strongly worded bill to protect Missouri citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Media and progressives (but I repeat myself) are calling it the nation’s “most extreme gun protection bill”. It awaits Democrat governor Jay Nixon’s signature. The same Jay that illegally shared the state’s CCW database with the DHS (and then vehemently denied it when called out on it).

Our local TV station asks us what we think. This is what I had to say:

Why was the word “extreme” chosen here? Other words would fit much better. “Strong”, for instance.

It’s also not a “gun protection” bill. It’s a “rights protection” bill. It clarifies the protection of one of our most basic natural rights – the right to protect ourselves, and our loved ones. There’s nothing extreme about it. What’s extreme is infringing on that right to the point of denial of it.

Since “gun free” zones seem to attract mass murderers, and we don’t want our kids in the center of what is a known magnet for these people, does it not make sense to at least allow the only apparent deterrent to these kinds of events? The introduction of the probability of failure?

Loading Likes...
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by .

About philmon

Part mountain junkie, part decent amateur photographer, part survivalist, part not-so-decent amateur musician, part sysadmin. Husband, step-dad, grandpa, and music freak who digs mechanical clocks, barometers, and Gil Elvgren pinups. Studied Meteorolgy & Computer Science. And the U.S. Constitution.

One thought on ““Extreme”

  1. Cylar

    It’s also not a “gun protection” bill. It’s a “rights protection” bill.

    This is precisely why I object to the term “gun lobby” when used to refer to the NRA and like-minded groups. My immediate reaction is always to correct the speaker: “NO…that is a gun rights lobby you’re referring to.” Big, BIG difference.

    NRA and SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) and other such groups don’t lobby for guns themselves. They lobby for the right of human beings to possess, carry, and – gasp – use guns. More specifically, the right to use guns responsibly and morally.

    It always strikes me as odd, too…how gun control advocates never seem to have any objection to the possesion of powerful weapons by the police and military. When questioned on this, they’ll reply that those groups have a demonstrated “need” for weapons as well as the training to handle them responsibly. My follow-up question is always, “Ditto in both cases for many civilian gun owners. Do you recognize that?”

    It’s tiresome to read things written by people who want to crack down on gun ownership, because it’s always the same story: all gun owners are the same, all of them are ticking time bombs, more laws are going to have some appreciable effect on the problems firearms are apparently causing, no regard for the other possible causes of gun crime (mental illness, glorification of violence in our culture & media, etc etc)…and of course, that old chestnut that gun rights lobbying groups apparently do not care about the people who are victims of gun crime, when any casual converasation with a member of such a group will quickly reveal a deeper concern about that than any member of the general public chosen at random.

    It’s the same fallacious assumption that those who refuse to throw in their lot with “peace” groups are somehow deemed “pro-war.” No. Nobody is “pro-war,” at least nobody sane. The real distinction lies between those who favor peace at any cost and those who favor peace after the threat to peace has been identified and dealt with, by force if it comes to that.

Comments are closed.