A Modest Proposal to Permit Everyone to Carry Guns in Public Buildings

Amid the welter of depressing news about the Great Recession, the Taliban's successes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a new rash of bombings in Iraq, there is a single bright spot.

Congress has overwhelmingly passed, and the president has signed into law a bill permitting the carrying of loaded and concealed weapons in our national parks.

All I can say is it's about time. Several years ago, while my wife and I were driving through Yellowstone National Park, we were frequently delayed - and sometimes felt threatened - by large numbers of bison. Herds of the big, ugly beasts blocked the roads. And I often caught them staring as though they meant to charge our vehicle. Only by gunning the engine could I frighten the creatures away.

But now that I can carry a loaded weapon in Yellowstone, I will no longer feel threatened. I can simply gun the beasts down if I sense a threat - or even if they have the chutzpah to slow my passage. And since assault weapons are no longer banned, I can take down several at a time with a few trigger tugs. And maybe knock off a couple of obnoxious tourists while I'm at it.

I see the law permitting loaded guns in national parks as just one more step in the lengthy process of our finally reclaiming our Second Amendment rights. The big first step came in June 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. President Obama's decision not to push for another assault weapons ban was another step. And this new law is a third. We gun rights advocates are on a roll!

It's clear to me what the logical next step should be. We should permit - even encourage - the carrying of loaded weapons in all public buildings. They can be concealed, or not (assault rifles and shotguns are, after all, too big to conceal). Democrat elitists will, of course, bitterly complain about this. But pay no attention to their whining. Or that of police and other law enforcement officers who've already begun to join in that whining; the Fraternal Order of Police and a Park Rangers group have come out against loaded guns in national parks.

But let's look at the advantages of permitting citizens to carry loaded weapons in public buildings. Four years ago a defendant on trial for rape in an Atlanta courtroom grabbed a gun from a deputy sheriff and killed the judge and two other people, critically wounded a fourth before escaping. He was later caught.

Now imagine if the judge or one or more of the jurors - or anyone else in the courtroom other than the armed deputies - was carrying a weapon. Imagine if, for example, a woman juror happened to be sitting with an assault rifle in her lap. She might have prevented the murders or gunned down the killer then and there. Of course, the juror might have hit more innocent people, especially if she didn't have much practice with a semi-automatic rifle. But - as our military tells us all the time, when it kills innocent Afghans in its air strikes --- sorry, but collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable.

In 1998, a man with a .38 caliber pistol killed two policemen at the Capitol in Washington. People panicked because bullets were flying all around. But if Congress members, staffers and tourists were armed, perhaps the killings could have been prevented. And what if more bullets flying around created more victims? Well, sometimes that can't be helped. The Second Amendment sometimes requires human sacrifice.

I saw the movie Milk which reminded me that if either San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk or Mayor George Moscone was armed, he might have prevented Dan White from shooting both of them to death at City Hall in 1978. Of course, other people on the scene, like then-Supervisor Dianne Feinstein, might have been hit as well. But so what, today we'd simply have one less liberal Democrat Feminazi senator.

And, getting back to national parks, the magazine Politico has pointed out that the White House itself, or at least part of the building and all of the grounds, has been a national park since it was designated one in 1961. The National Park Service calls its 18 acres of gardens and grounds The President's Park, and has a website that says so.

Does that mean that White House tourists can bring loaded weapons inside? Well, the measure President Obama just reluctantly signed (as the price of credit card reforms he wanted) makes loaded weapons legal in national parks if "the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the state" in which the park is located. Washington, of course, is not a state. But the city has no law that bans guns in national parks within its jurisdiction.

So, can I pack heat in the Executive Mansion? A spokesman for the mayor says NO! the legislation "will not apply to the national parks" in Washington. More important, the Secret Service won't hear of it. "We control security at the White House," a spokesman told Politico. "No weapons are permitted."

Just a bunch of spoilsports.

Comments

[OdinsEye]

clevlandchick wrote: "Semi-autos allow you to keep pulling the trigger to release more bullets quicly. They are still more dangerous and can inflict more harm than standard pistols."

Semi-autos ARE standard pistols.

"I don't see how you can say these weapons are so strictly controlled. "

Full-auto firearms are strictly controlled. To legally possess one you must be fingerprinted, photographed, obtain an affidavit from state authorities attesting to your character and ability to possess, you must fill out a different form than used for other firearms, and send that, along with $200, to the BATFE. They will in turn send your info to the FBI who will take several weeks to conduct a complete background check (not the instant check as with other firearms). If approved, the BATFE will register the firearm to you and return the completed form with an affixed tax stamp which you must keep on file and present to law enforcement when asked. Failure to do the above is a federal felony worth 10 years in FEDERAL prison. The BATFE can also inspect your paperwork and firearm at any time and you cannot take the firearm across state lines without notifying the BATFE.

"Haven't we had a few incidences where these weapons were used in pubic places where innocent people were killed"

No. Common confusion between semi-auto and full-auto and between assault weapons and assault rifles. Full-auto firearms and assault rifles are very, very rarely used in crimes.

[molonlabe]

clevelandchick also wrote this gem:

"I'm more afraid of the "legal" gawd fearin tea baggin far right reactionary nutcases out there with guns. Recently the news has illustrated that fear is well founded. "

Somehow I doubt you would be able to shoehorn your explanation of Class III firearms into that narrow mind.

[Ohio9]

The last time I heard of an automatic weapon being used in a crime was the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, which took place in California. According to the Brady Bunch, California has the strictest gun control laws in the land. Something to think about.

[djkrlsn]

And last time I checked--the guns used by the robbers were BOTH illegal per STATE and FEDERAL laws, as is robbing banks, mass murder, attempted mass murder, assault with a deadly weapon, car jacking, and trying to kill cops

[molonlabe]

"But now that I can carry a loaded weapon in Yellowstone, I will no longer feel threatened. I can simply gun the beasts down if I sense a threat - or even if they have the chutzpah to slow my passage. And since assault weapons are no longer banned, I can take down several at a time with a few trigger tugs. And maybe knock off a couple of obnoxious tourists while I'm at it. "

Wow. I see that along with the gun industry, the Kool-aid industry is also recession-proof. Lots of it going around lately. Mr. Goodman has joined the many anti-gun crusaders who have thrown themselves over a cliff and into the hoplopohbic abyss by regurgitating the same debunked sensationalized hypothetical situations. We heard it in the '90's when aggressive passage of CCW laws were introduced and passed. Despite the cries to the contrary, we never did see the Wild West Shootouts(tm) which were predicted by those scared by the big bad NRA boogyman.

Just like we won't all of a sudden see law-abiding citizens turning onto vigilantes and poachers.

The only thing this law does is recognize the fact that your right to keep and bear arms does not somehow become null and void in a national park. Criminals hell bent on being criminals will still be criminals, and law-abiding citizens will still be law-abiding citizens.

Drink up, Sandy. There's PLENTY to go around!

[bernusdellus]

The NRA has long had a slogan, "If you make guns illegal, only the criminals will have guns".

Being British by birth and a New Zealander by residence, I've often wondered why that could be seen as a bad thing. I live in societies where guns are very tightly controlled, only criminals carry guns anywhere except when hunting in the wilderness or practising at a gun range.

The wonderful thing about it is that it makes it very easy for the police to identify who the criminals are. Get caught with a gun on you, go to jail.

In my current home, NZ, a crime involving a gun [very rare] makes the front page of the newspaper. Personally, I like it that way. People who enjoy killing things can still indulge in their atavistic blood-lust, they just have to restrict their enjoyment to slaying non-humans.

Not a perfect world, but at least I can get away with flipping off the occasional bad driver without worrying about being gunned down as a result.

[djkrlsn]

Only thing is--if only the criminals have guns, it will be more difficult for the victims to defend themselves--and the work done by John Lott and others indicates that law abiding people carrying guns decrease crime

[bernusdellus]

That statement assumes an environment where there are many gun-toting criminals. The benefit to strict gun controls is that guns are strictly controlled. Its not only very difficult to for criminals to buy a gun in NZ, its also just not worth the risk for them to get caught carrying one.

We do have gun owners and, I believe, we have a situation that the 2nd amendment to your constitution was intended to cover. We can keep weapons in our homes for self-defense or to react to a possibly out of control, hostile government.

I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'd be interested in comparing the per capita crime statistics between the US and NZ.

[mediamarv]

I thinnk pizza delivery guys should be the next group allowed to carry concealed firearms... then let's see those frat boy try to stiff me on a tip.....

[OdinsEye]

They already can, though their companies frown on it and have been known to fire them for doing so.

[Stu Marks]

Did the new bill mention shooting wildlife? I always thought that firearms were for personal protection against criminal humans, not criminal bison. Did I miss something? Is there a large contingent of bison shooters out there?

Usually, folks that act stupidly around wildlife are the first ones to get hurt by them, which has nothing at all to do with firearms.

I wonder what would happen if this idiot who thought that the firearms bill was about bison was faced with one of the hundreds of gun toting illegals. Maybe they could scare off the thug with a loaded bison?

I don't get it.

[clevelandchick]

First of all he was being sarcastic, who's the idiot here?

I'm alot less frightened of illegals who are less likely to buy or use a gun in a crime less they be discovered and shipped back. I'm more afraid of the "legal" gawd fearin tea baggin far right reactionary nutcases out there with guns. Recently the news has illustrated that fear is well founded.

The blogger is right, of course there's going to be some yahoos that decide to go to the parks and kill wildlife for fun. There are also going to be innocent people killed.

The whole 'self defense' argument for allowing guns in public is such a canard. If the cops come to an incident they can't tell who the shooter is and who is the citizen 'defending themself'. Shooters don't wear signs that say "Over here! I'm the thug!".

You want a gun in your house to protect yourself from intruders, fine. You want one for hunting, fine. But for millions of people to carry guns in public places, that's a disaster waiting to happen. And it's happening all of the time.

[djkrlsn]

The studies I have seen indicate that firearms are used somewhere between 100,000 to 2.5 million times a year--and if the cops can't tell the difference between someone showing them a CCW (which requires an extensive background check to get and someone with (most likely) a criminal record--they need to get another job. Also, as has been stated elsewhere-- these fears of "blood running through the street" (tm) have been proved to be groundless

[Ohio9]

"I'm more afraid of the "legal" gawd fearin tea baggin far right reactionary nutcases out there with guns."

Typical gun control fanatic. You guys are so convinced that all of your fellow citizens are potential killers ready to murder at any given moment. And then you call us "paranoid".

"The blogger is right, of course there's going to be some yahoos that decide to go to the parks and kill wildlife for fun. There are also going to be innocent people killed."

And your proof of this is......?":

"The whole 'self defense' argument for allowing guns in public is such a canard."

Then why is self defense with firearms in public so common? It happends all the time:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

"If the cops come to an incident they can't tell who the shooter is and who is the citizen 'defending themself'. Shooters don't wear signs that say "Over here! I'm the thug!".

The incident is almost always over before the cops arrive. That is especially true in parks.

"But for millions of people to carry guns in public places, that's a disaster waiting to happen. And it's happening all of the time."

You admitted that millions of people carry concealed weapons. Yet we don't have millions of gun homicides per year. That proves that it isn't a "disaster waiting to happen", and is in fact perfectly safe when done so by responsible people, as nearly all CCW holders are.

[mediamarv]

Satire, the next endangered species?????

[djkrlsn]

from your comment marvie--you support violating the bill of rights, but knowing many people here, you probably have a problem understanding Heller

[noaxe397]

The author needs to understand that in ruling for Heller, the SCOTUS did not envision bison breaking into your home.

[djkrlsn]

And several responders here forget that the discussion here is dealing with firearms and NOT nukes, WMDS and area effect weapons--especially since the "I want my WMD/nuke/RPGers have either not read Heller or have made no effort to understand the Heller decision

[Ohio9]

This article contains many fallacies and distortions.

First of all, the overwhelming majority of police officers support the right to bear arms:

From a 2005 police survey:

http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf

* 92% of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights for sport and self defense;
* 95% of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources
* 60% believe a system of nationwide concealed carry would reduce violent crime.

As for the capital, that's not an issue because Washington D. C. does not allow concealed carry. The parks amendment only allows CCW in parks where it is allowed by local law. Since the district does not allow CCW, the issue is moot.

Finally, when was the last time you read a newspaper headline that said "32 innocent bystanders are killed by a citizen firing his gun in self defense"? Homicides from "friendly fire are extremely rare. Most homicides (especially in mass shootings) are carried out by criminals against defenseless victims. Thus allowing the victims to defend themselves is the only rational response.

[Sandy Goodman - Huffpost Blogger]

I think Ohiog has a a little bit of a point, but only a little bit, when pointing out that washington d.c. doesn't allow concealed carry of weapons and that therefore one couldn't legally carry a concealed weapon into the White House, possibly contradicting what I had to say.

But, since bans on concealed weapons have not recently been tested in the Supreme Court, I don't think we know whether those prohibitions would continue to be legal. Furthermore, any ban on concealed weapons does not rule out the carrying of rifles or shotguns in the White House (except that those spoilsports in the Secret Service claim they won't permit it).

As for Ohiog's statement that a poll of police chiefs shows that 92 per cent favor citizens' gun ownership for sport or self defense, that's true but irrelevant, since there is no question in the poll about whether they favor citizens carrying weapons in public buildings, as I advocate. I doubt the chiefs would agree with me on that, since it would permit citizens to carry guns in police precincts.

I call everyone's attention to the thoughtful comment (the third below) by Rog49Thomas, who urges a far greater expansion of the Second Amendment than I had envisioned, including the right of citizens to have RPGs, IEDs and tactical nuclear weapons, among others. After all, as Rog49Thomas points out, these days "Our survival as a nation is at stake."

[clevelandchick]

I highly doubt the police want to worry about millions of citizens packing heat in public buildings. No more than they favor citizens being able to carry automatic or semi-automatic weapons and hollow point bullets.

[Ohio9]

The Supreme court stated in the Heller verdict that governments could prohibit carrying concealed weapons and could prohibit guns in government buildings, so it seems certain Washintgon's CCW ban and gun ban at the capital would survive a court challenge.

Correct me if wrong here, but I don't think Washington allows the open carrying of guns in public either. If that's true, then this issue is just as moot as the CCW one. Like I said, the parks amendment only requires parks to comply with the laws of the places they are located.

Finally, the police poll didn't ask about CCW in specific places, so there is no way to know how the cops feel about it in any specific building. But what it does show is broad support for CCW as a general policy, with 60% of respondents saying a national CCW system would reduce violent crime.

[Ohio9]

The talk of weapons of mass destruction in regard to the second amendment is a classic straw man. No one is demanding access to nukes, bioweapons, shoulder fired rocket launchers, or landmines. You don't defend your family with those. They are the weapons of war.

Second amendment advocates only defend weapons effective for self defense, such as revolvers, pistols, shotguns,and semi-automatic rifles.

[OdinsEye]

"I call everyone's attention to the thoughtful comment (the third below) by Rog49Thomas, who urges a far greater expansion of the Second Amendment than I had envisioned, including the right of citizens to have RPGs, IEDs and tactical nuclear weapons, among others. "

Sandy,

What Rog49 engaged in has been a reducto ad absurdum argument for many, many years and has been defeated, deflated, and demolished for nearly as long. In fact, it is so old and worn out that for well over a decade it has been simply refered to as "the nuke argument".

[GoldenBoy22]

I have a carry permit and have carried numerous times in both the Sheriff and State Police offices. Officers were notified (as per MI law)and had no problems with it.

[quiviran]

Odd isn't? Congress forces us to put up with armed strangers in our spaces, but won't allow it in theirs. Congress needs to be brought back to America. If we don't get universal healthcare, why should they. Being elected to Congress is not a job, it's a sought after public service opportunity. Why should it come with employer based health insurance? If they are employees, aren't we their employers? Why shouldn't we get as good (or better) health care as our employees do? We've let Congress get away with far too much, far too long.

[djkrlsn]

Self defense happens to be a rights wherever you be--and that includes having the tools available to stop the attack even if a disabled victim weighing less than 100 pounds is facing an attacker that can beat the current heavyweight MMA champ hand to hand

[humanbeinghuman]

i spoke with a park ranger about this last summer. he pointed out that if you shoot at , say, a bear that is threatening you and you miss, that bullet will travel for a mile thru the (usually crowded) campground before it stops, unless, of course, it hits you or your family or the people in the tent next to yours.
he suggested education ( they gave talks on this every evening ) and perhaps pepper spray.

[Rog49Thomas]

Sandy, you certainly are on to something here.

As many advocates of Second Amendment rights will tell you, one of the reasons for this Amendment was so that citizens could not only protect themselves from marauding Injuns, foreign armies, criminals but our own government (which evidently has quite a totalitarian streak hard wired into it).

Back in 1789, the yeoman citizen with his musket was roughly a match for a regular army (save of course for artillery).

Today it's quite different.

That's why our right to bear arms has to be widened so that we can defend ourselves. When Cuban paratroopers land on the National Mall and easily brush aside our weak, ineffeictve Armed Forces, when drug lords stage a raid on our neighborhood, when the putative Nate Turner at the plantation down the road revolts. or our own Govt sends "jack booted thugs" (thanks Wayne for pointing that out), how will we resist with simple weapons?

There should be an immediate addition to the Second Amendment to clarify that citizens may have RPGs, IEDs, SAMs/Stingers, artillery as well as tactical nuclear weapons. Of course as a responsible gun owner, I am willing to concede that for the latter there would have to be a "wait period" of let's say 12 hours before one could take delivery. Chemical and bio weapons are also needed as a counter measure if say the ATF uses them in one of its raids.

Our survival as a nation is at stake.

[djkrlsn]

Roj--time for you to go back to your favorite porn site--the only people talking about WMDs, tactical nukes, IEDs, RPGS etc are the Bradybots who are ignoring Heller and are still advocating no guns for anyone at any time

[Rog49Thomas]

I was pointing out the absurdities of the justifications used by a great majority of the Second Amendment crowd, including of course Wayne LaPierre of the NRA.

Love the Rushian ad hominem attack - shows you're one of the true believers.

On the other hand, I'm from the fact based folk.

[docallen001]

So you don't think there should be bans on guns. However, where will it all end? When those all knowing Second Amendment advocates push for allowing concealed weapons in the Atlanta airport and invoke fear of harm by criminals, I begin to believe that they suffer from an incurable dose of the Repub fear factor. I do a lot of flying and I certainly would be more concerned about those "packing" in an airport than the criminal element - primarily pick pockets. I would hope that the SA types don't think they should shoot pickpockets. Plus even trained police have to think twice about shooting their weapons in a crowed situation - not withstanding it being a common occurrence in TV movies.

[musicman42]

A question to all of the people who, legally or illegally carry hand guns or concealed weapons - are you prepared to kill another human being? Taking the life of a dangerous and threatening deer is one thing, but killing another person even in self defense is a very different thing.

[quiviran]

Cleary they wan't to be ready if the opportunity presents itself.

[MossyOak]

A dangerous and threatening DEER? You need to spend some time in the outdoors, fella.

[OdinsEye]

Deer attack people quite frequently. I know a person who was quite seriously gored and kicked by one.

[Ohio9]

It is true that taking a life, even in self defense, is a terrible thing that is hard to do and harder to get over.

However, getting raped, injured, or killed, or watching that happen to someone you know because you are unable to protect yourself and loved ones is even worse. That's why I carry a gun everywhere I am legally permitted to do so. I am prepared to take a life in self defense because I know the alternative is far worse.

[clevelandchick]

Guns in public places put everyone in danger. If you go to shoot someone threatening you, you many not hit him but an innocent bystander. If the cops come they can't tell whether you're the perp or the other guy is. It's one thing if you're in a one on one situation but if you're in public chances are you won't be.

[OdinsEye]

"A question to all of the people who, legally or illegally carry hand guns or concealed weapons - are you prepared to kill another human being?"

Prepared? Yes. Do we want to? No.

[Torus34]

The thought of an armed citizenry, most especially those seated in the galleries of the US House of Representatives and Senate, is delightful. I suspect that fiery speeches would be somewhat tempered by the thought of angering segments of the American public.

[Rog49Thomas]

I hope your post doesn't mean that you intend to deny our elected representatives their right to bear arms.

Besides their Constitutional right to do so, I think it could be quite salutary for our nation if certain political disputes could be solved through duels on the floor of the Senate or House of Reps.

Brother Zell, I demand satisfaction. Pistols at twenty paces.

[djkrlsn]

Even with shall issue CCW--dueling remains illegal--thanks for playing

[themuse]

By all credible studies and common sense, more guns = more violence. The Death-by-Violence industry wants everyone to pack heat. For them, more guns = bigger profits. It's all about money.

I'm not worried about the responsible gun toter, I'm concerned about the carousing teen, or the psychopath. The easier it is to acquire weapons, the easier it is for the irresponsible to wreak havoc.

[PavePusher]

Uh, what sources...?

[elizucinda]

Perhaps you should compare the number of deaths by gunshot in the United States against other countries that have stricter gun laws. there is a direct correlation.

[libertron]

Haha, I agree with this post 100% except for the sarcastic tone and the part about gunning down annoying tourists. Just tell them to get back on the bus and go back to Japan.

[OdinsEye]

"And since assault weapons are no longer banned, I can take down several at a time with a few trigger tugs."

Assault weapons are semi-autos, not full-autos, and fire only one shot per trigger pull. The '94 AWB only banned the new manufacture and new sales of certain semi-autos which looked particularly evil or had more than an arbitrary number of arbitrary external features. All other semi-autos were unaffected by the law. BTW, semi-autos have been around for more than 100 years.

"We should permit--even encourage--the carrying of loaded weapons in all public buildings. They can be concealed, or not "

Actually in several cities and counties across the US, this is indeed permissable in city and county buildings. I am not aware of many state buildings where it is allowed, though I am sure it is in some. Federal buildings appear to be about the only places where the practice is universally banned.

"assault rifles and shotguns are, after all, too big to conceal"

Assault rifles, unlike assault weapons, are full-auto firearms and are very strictly controlled items.

"Now imagine if the judge or one or more of the jurors - or anyone else in the courtroom other than the armed deputies - was carrying a weapon. "

Actually, in many cases judges are already allowed to carry firearms even in court.

[PavePusher]

I have to wonder what our government is doing wrong, that they must fear the people so badly as to restrict arms in any publicly owned buildings.

Perhaps if they weren't constantly trying to rectal-rape the citizens, they wouldn't have anything to be afraid of....

[clevelandchick]

Semi-autos allow you to keep pulling the trigger to release more bullets quicly. They are still more dangerous and can inflict more harm than standard pistols.

I don't see how you can say these weapons are so strictly controlled. Haven't we had a few incidences where these weapons were used in pubic places where innocent people were killed

[djkrlsn]

Semiautos are now more popular than revolvers for defensive use so I am curious what your point is

[OdinsEye]

"Semi-autos allow you to keep pulling the trigger to release more bullets quicly. They are still more dangerous and can inflict more harm than standard pistols."

Semi-autos ARE standard pistols.

"I don't see how you can say these weapons are so strictly controlled. "

Full-auto firearms are strictly controlled. To legally possess one you must be fingerprinted, photographed, obtain an affidavit from state authorities attesting to your character and ability to possess, you must fill out a different form than used for other firearms, and send that, along with $200, to the BATFE. They will in turn send your info to the FBI who will take several weeks to conduct a complete background check (not the instant check as with other firearms). If approved, the BATFE will register the firearm to you and return the completed form with an affixed tax stamp which you must keep on file and present to law enforcement when asked. Failure to do the above is a federal felony worth 10 years in FEDERAL prison. The BATFE can also inspect your paperwork and firearm at any time and you cannot take the firearm across state lines without notifying the BATFE.

"Haven't we had a few incidences where these weapons were used in pubic places where innocent people were killed"

No. Common confusion between semi-auto and full-auto and between assault weapons and assault rifles. Full-auto firearms and assault rifles are very, very rarely used in crimes.

[Sentinel37]

"What you happen to be ignoring is that CCW holders tend to be MORE LAWABIDING than LEOs, so if armed rangers are not a problem, CCW holders won't be a problem either. "

Ok dj, want to source this for me, or did it just come from your paranoia about ATF jackbooted thugs taking your guns away?

[djkrlsn]

John Lott among others--the information is available if you choose to look it up--I would say it is the responsibility of those that would deny a right to legit self defense to prove those that support the pro RKBA people wrong , and since per 38 out of 40 rulings of SCOTUS--the RKBA is AN INDIVIDUAL ONE--since you would limit or eliminate that right, do your own research

[jules23]

The only reason you need guns for self defense is because you have so many guns. Its kinda a self-fulfilling prophecy.