First and foremost I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment. I am not an American who is uninformed as to this right under our Constitution. For instance, I know what the framers intent was when the 2nd Amendment was enacted. I know my history. The right was born so that Americans could protect and defend their person and their property against a tyrannical centralized government.
The arguments that are flying around the media today, in response to Sandy Hook, are bandied about and framed in the argument that we need to control weapons to protect our children from harm. Do not be fooled by this argument. If the legislators and politicians wanted to protect our children they would not allow abortion. I know, I know, here is that kook talking about abortion, but the argument cuts directly to the core of the current gun debate argument from the left. It has nothing to do with children and everything to do with disarming a populace in the style and manner of Stalin. Pravda, the famous mouthpiece of Stalin has printed articles recently warning us NOT to go in this direction and to learn from history as to what will occur if it does.
The long and successful mission creep to disarm us has been wildly successful as we Americans are asleep at the wheel again. We have allowed cities, States and the Government to infringe upon this absolute right in ways we cannot comprehend. I can give you a prime example. On January 11, 2013 two men in Oregon caused quite a stir when they walked the streets with semi-automatic weapons (assault rifles) slung over their shoulders, openly.
At first blush I thought that the two men were irresponsible and to be honest, extreme. The news covered the incident as the populace was alarmed, scared and cowering since the two decided to make their political statement so close to the Sandy Hook massacre.
As I followed the news and saw the reaction to the public about the display I realized that even though both men were well within their rights lawfully (as no charges were filed and their weapons were not confiscated) the public was not accustomed to seeing armed men walking about and thus caused alarm.
"residents and parents were upset and disturbed. They voiced their disapproval of the men's behavior coming less than a month after the tragic Sandy Hook massacre in which a man armed with a semiautomatic weapon killed 20 children and six adults at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
Anglada Bartley, a mother of a 9-month-old, told KATU-TV: "That’s not the purpose of the Second Amendment, to frighten citizens, to frighten women and children. And I don’t think there’s anyone who can argue, especially after the tragedy where so many children were killed – nobody can argue that it’s not scary to have people marauding around Sellwood with guns."
Another resident Bob Cronk, said: "It’s completely ridiculous. I think our right to a peaceful quiet school day comes before their right to brandish their rifles in a family-oriented neighborhood."
Then I followed the statement by the police:
"The Portland Police Bureau, however, wisely asks anyone who sees someone armed with guns not to approach the person and talk to him but to call 911 immediately.
OregonLive reports that Drouin has an extensive history with Medford police over his practice of openly carrying semiautomatic weapon in parks, businesses and other public places. Medford police say they have received at least 67 complaints about Drouin between June 2011 and December 2012. The incidents generated several 911 calls and one business barred him from its premises.
According to OregonLive, Drouin is very well know to the police. They refer to him simply as "Warren" and officers receive training and instructions on how to deal with and approach him and others in the "open carry [activist] movement."
He was once handcuffed and briefly detained when he showed up at the Medford City Hall complex openly carrying a semi-automatic. Medford police Chief Tim George, commented on Drouin's behavior: "Being legal does not mean it is a wise thing to do. Responsible firearms owners would not and don't do this."
Oregon law allows (or in this case, does not disallow) residents to openly carry firearms without a permit. If you wish to conceal carry you must have a license. The Medford police Chief's comment is indicative of the mission creeps success when he stated "Being legal does not mean it is a wise thing to do. Responsible firearms owners would not and don't do this."
Responsible firearm owners are not wise to openly carry? Our current climate in this 2nd amendment debate is already framed for us by stigmatizing a right being exercised as "unwise". Society is shocked to see 2 men walking the streets with AR-15's slung over their shoulders as "out of the ordinary" and instill fear in common citizens.
It was at that point of realization that the action of these two young men were not so extreme. They are, in my eyes, refocusing the debate.
Imagine -- If all responsible firearm owners follow suit. You have to ask yourself whether or not this is a good thing or bad. Will the result of armed populace end in "OK Corral" style violence? Or, will violence actually be curbed as criminals will see an armed populace. Will the action scare the populace or will more exposure to armed individuals reassure a populace once they see that crime rates drop? Finally, the most important message it will send is to the Government itself -- we are armed as was intended by the framers.
The final question of police responding to 911 calls will diminish as more and more people become accustomed to an armed populace. I believe that violent gun related deaths will be to those who use weapons against innocents and have no respect for the rule of law.