On December 14, the very day twenty children and seven adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, the Michigan State legislature enacted a bill that would have allowed the concealed carrying of firearms in traditionally gun-free zones:
The Michigan Legislature has enacted a bill allowing people who undergo extra training to carry concealed weapons in places such as schools, churches, day care centers and sports stadiums where they previously were off-limits.
…
Another provision would eliminate county concealed weapons licensing boards, with sheriffs taking over their duties.
Under the bill, people who concealed carry in gun-free zones would have to get enhanced training beyond basic requirements and spend additional time at the gun range.
Source: Click On Detroit
That bill, which is by far one of the most sensible legislative actions this year, made its way to the desk of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.
Ironically, after citing the Sandy Hook school shooting, the Republican governor promptly vetoed the legislation.
“While we must vigilantly protect the rights of law-abiding firearm owners, we also must ensure the right of designated public entities to exercise their best discretion in manners of safety and security,” he said. “These public venues need clear legal authority to ban firearms on their premises if they see fit do so.”
Safety and security?
Had a teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a student at Virgina Tech, a movie goer in Aurora, Colorado, or a pilot on one of the four planes downed on September 11th been armed, scores of lives could have been saved.
The Michigan legislature took an important first step towards introducing Constitution-friendly legislation that puts the power of self defense and personal preservation back into the hands of law abiding American citizens.
However, instead of embracing legislation that could prevent, or at the very least minimize, mass-murder incidents in the future, Michigan’s governor, and a host of other political figures and foreign governments that would disarm the citizenry, are taking exactly the opposite approach.
Amid all of the emotionally driven rhetoric surrounding the perceived dangers of owning firearms, few have considered a realistic approach to stopping violent criminals and psychopaths who have no regard for the law or human life. With nearly one gun in America for every person, the task of executing a ban would be daunting, not to mention dangerous for law enforcement officials given that what we’re talking about here is disarming Americans, arguably the most heavily armed citizenry in the history of the world.
Gun bans, as we’ve seen in Australia and the UK, do not work, despite what the communist Chinese suggest we do (speaking of China, has anyone considered that maybe there’s a reason the Chinese want the American people disarmed?)
Does anyone realistically think that a gun ban will remove every one of the nearly 300 million guns in America? Or that mass murders will somehow be prevented once law abiding citizens no longer have access to ‘assault rifles’ ? Do those supporting executive action to supplant the Second Amendment by banning assault rifles actually believe this is the solution? Are we to believe that once guns are banned, that the other 750 million weapons throughout the world won’t make their way to America’s shores via the black market?
We need to be realistic here and understand that guns are not going away, and neither are criminals and those with mental health issues.
Legislation allowing concealed carry in public venues, especially schools, sports stadiums and other high-priority terrorist targets at least gives us a fighting chance.
The alternative is sheep being led to slaughter, just as we saw last Friday.
Poster Comment:
A genuine full-strength anti-2A Republican like Semiauto ban Mitt, Juan Triggerlock McCain, and George W. Loophole Bush. IOW, a MitTard progressive neocon gungrabber!
