Guys like Michael Williams—Christian, law-abiding, educated—are denied CCW permits here in SoCal, while crooks ignore the CCW law and numerous others. Michael lives somewhere in between me and my daily commute to the gym--a hotbed of countless forms of mayhem, usually involving gun violence.
One wonders what the governmental purpose is of denying good citizens the right to defend themselves against the rabble of this country. At night, while in my home, my peace will be disturbed by the noise of circling police helicopters at least three nights a week. On a given Friday or Saturday night, I can drive all around the area in which I live and see a half a dozen police cars, three fire engines and at least two EMT vehicles, all blocking off a section of road, due to some unauthorized gun-play. On some nights, I’ll see up to five such scenes.
I fail to see how the denial of CCW permits to guys like Michael will put a dent in the frequency of these types of incidents.
It’s been demonstrated that states which have liberal (not Liberal) CCW regulations tend to have lower violent crime rates, so what could be the purpose of not adopting these regulations? Why would a government not want its citizens to be able to protect themselves?
Brain-storming session coming…
• The government may want the average citizen to depend on the government for his/her protection. This will plant the idea that citizens can count on the government for nearly all of their needs. No, it doesn't matter how demonstrably false the idea is. As we've seen in countless other matters, as long as the lie seed is planted, the lie will flourish, serenely unhindered by the facts.
• A government may want to be able to act with autonomy without worrying about an armed citizenry rising up in protest (see National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union and Cuba).
• When a certain segment of its citizenry is hardest hit by gun violence, a government may just “let them kill each other,” taking care of the problem that way, or so it would seem. The government figures that the law-abiding citizens will eventually just give up and move out.
Are any of these suppositions—or others--part of the goals of those who continue to chip away at the Second Amendment? I don’t know. I do know that it has been continuously demonstrated both in the USA and in other countries that an unarmed citizenry is a vulnerable one—both from small-time crooks and from the big-time ones.
(Thanks to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)