22 Comments

Great article.

“Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible." - Kamala Harris

Kinda tells you where we are at in America

Expand full comment

Without the second amendment the fourth amendment is toast,

Expand full comment

Without the second the first is toast.

Expand full comment

I'm happy that there are so many David's with the ability to think critically.

Expand full comment

Thanks

Expand full comment

For a much more cynical view, in light of all we are now living through, I would not put it past some of the people who passed this law to have planned that it would mean less security for our children, more mass shootings and casualties, in an atttempt to require law abiding gun owners to surrender their guns. Worked in Australia.

Expand full comment

Quite possibly.

Expand full comment

No offense intended, Bianca; but it is a mistake to think that values in one country equate to values in another. Obviously, you know the USA response. If we law abiding gun owners surrender our guns, we will be victimized by those criminals who continue to own them. Just as the innocent children in the shooting galleries once known as public schools.

Expand full comment

We are in agreement.

Expand full comment

I'm the right age to have lived through the implementation of this law in the USA, and kinda astonished right now that I don't remember the law, nor what it was trying to accomplish, nor to where it applied. But I do remember columbine and the feeling ever since then that of course we should defend our schools. Traveling through TSA absolute bullshit and all the security around air travel, it is preposterous the lack of security we spend on schools or really all of our youth venues. I question my sanity that it took thi substacker's essay (thank you) to make me even wonder about this retarded law.

Expand full comment

I don’t think that the msm or gun controllers want it mentioned. You will notice that after every school shooting it is not mentioned.

Expand full comment

Those who want to disarm you have security paid by you.

Expand full comment

"Why on Earth was this law not rescinded when it turned out to be such a disaster? It's almost like the politicians don't want them to stop."

In spite of what we are told about an "era of deregulation" and the repeal of certain laws, almost no laws are ever permanently repealed, while tens of thousands of new ones are are created every year. Trump repealed a few laws, but almost all were reinstated by judges or Biden.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1662830998

Expand full comment

It would be good if the Constitution had mandated that laws sunset after a given period. Then the politicians could fight over that instead of dreaming up new ones.

Expand full comment

Brilliant idea! Thomas Jefferson wanted every law to sunset after 19 years.

"...no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."

Thomas Jefferson, letter written in Paris to James Madison (1789)

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248

If he had not been over in France during the constitutional convention instead of in America, he might have gotten that in the Constitution our country might still be free.

I think, David, that if an amendment were added to the Constitution to make every law sunset, and have to be re-passed after, say 33 years, then yes, we could get America back from the leftists.

Expand full comment

Great points.

You might want to research gun ownership in the USA; counties with the highest gun per-person ratio have the least violent gun-related crimes.

You have to be suicidal to mess with a well-armed granny, and few live to tell the tale, so criminals go for the easy prey, blue states.

The Blue State solution is more money for the government and less freedom for the individual.

Expand full comment

And thanks for the restack. You might like this:

https://drp314.substack.com/p/the-demonizing-of-self-defense

Expand full comment

In North Carolina in the devastated region people are routinely going armed. This keeps the looters at bay and people are not under the thumb of FEMA.

Expand full comment

Looters only take what is easy with no cost to them. Disincentive goes a long way peacefully.

Expand full comment

So mass-casualty shootings in schools happen for reasons unrelated to their status as "gun-free"....

But, given that most, if not all shooters are suicidal, could it be argued that school shootings happen in gun-free schools, because the shooters know they will face only un-armed resistance(no resistance)....???.... In other words, do "gun-free zones" actually ENCOURAGE school shootings?

Expand full comment

Seems like it. If you want to rack up a big score before being killed you go to the land of the unarmed.

Expand full comment

Yes. More victims less resistance.

Expand full comment