The Spartanburg, South Carolina Herald-Journal has published an editorial explaining why they believe that allowing people to exercise their natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm of their choice is a bad idea. Let’s take a closer look at some of their arguments, shall we? . . .
The Herald Journal editorial board (hereinafter referred to as H-Jeb) start out well enough (if we ignore their falling prey to the unfortunately common fallacy that the Bill of Rights grants rights as opposed to merely protecting them):
It’s called the Constitutional carry bill, and the philosophical logic behind the bill is sound. The Second Amendment to the Constitution gives American citizens the right to carry arms, and you shouldn’t need a permit to exercise your rights.
Having acknowledged that individuals have this fundamental right, however, they then start to wet themselves at the thought of people actually exercising the right:
But the practical dangers of the bill outweigh the reasonable philosophy behind it. Carrying a concealed firearm is a tremendous responsibility. Those who want to do so should be willing to receive the training necessary to make sure they carry their weapons safely and in adherence to the many rules about where and when they may carry them.
It may surprise some of you who have come to know me through my writing, but I completely agree with H-Jeb. Carrying a weapon (or two or three) is a tremendous responsibility. Those of us who choose to take responsibility for our safety and that of our loved ones by carrying should not only get training in how to carry safely and legally, but should also train regularly on how to properly use their weapons.
Where I differ with H-Jeb is that I believe most adults are, well, adults. That is they are people who can be trusted to act responsibly without threats or coercion, and that those who choose to carry weapons be smart enough to learn how, when and where to use (or not use) them. H-Jeb has a slightly different outlook on the lumpenproletariat:
Under Bright’s proposal, anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun in the state of South Carolina would be able to carry that weapon either concealed or openly.
Guys, you’re saying that like it is a bad thing. It isn’t. Out of all the studies (and there have been dozens) which looked at loosening gun laws only one showed any increase in crime, and that was a temporary increase in aggravated assaults. Besides, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility. But H-Jeb has more specific concerns:
That would include anyone who just bought a gun and has had no training in safe handling of the weapon. It would include people who have no idea that it’s illegal to carry a weapon into a hospital, a school, a courthouse or most churches.
First things first: I do not believe that laws prohibiting carry in schools, hospitals or churches are wise, effective or Constitutional. Setting that aside, though, so what if some people are unaware of the law and carry into a temple, hospital or school? The only person who would be hurt in that case is the ignoramus themselves (and only then if they get caught).
As for H-Jeb’s fear that people who don’t know which end the bullet comes out of will buy and carry a weapon, I would ask them this: Would you buy a gun with no knowledge whatsoever of how it worked and how to carry it safely? If the answer is “yes” then I guess it is for the best that you never purchase a gun[1]. But if the answer is “no” then how dare you assume that you are more responsible than I?!? I know and know of a lot of people who own and carry guns, and out of those hundreds of people I only know one who did not undergo any sort of safety training before buying her gun and getting her permit, and that one was an anti named Heidi Yewman who wanted to “prove” how unsafe permit-holders were by avoiding any opportunity (and she was offered many) to learn gun safety.
Finally H-Jeb brings up their ultimate objection:
In addition, a number of lesser crimes don’t limit an individual’s ability to own a gun, but they do prohibit someone convicted of those offenses from obtaining a concealed weapon permit. If Bright’s bill were passed, people who break those laws would be legally able to carry weapons.
The only problem is, as far as I can tell from an intensive perusal of the relevant statutes, blogs and discussion threads, H-Jeb is simply flat out wrong (another case for Mandatory Factual Safety Education legislation). The statutes, SC SLED site and application all state that if you can’t possess a firearm under federal or state law you can’t get a permit. In other words, people who break “those laws” would not be able to legally carry a weapon[2]. The only possible exception I can find is a footnote from a SC CWP class website which states:
Note: Driving record – A minor traffic violation will not result in denial of a permit. However, six multiple traffic violations within a five year period can be used as a basis for denial.
So what it boils down to is that H-Jeb believes that someone’s natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional rights should be shredded for . . . speeding tickets?
Seriously?
[1] And maybe you should avoid having children for that matter, because if you are so irresponsible that you won’t learn gun safety before you buy a gun then you are also irresponsible enough to leave those guns plus knives, poisons, bare electrical wires and pots of boiling water lying around you house where kids can get into them.
[2] Again, I will not go into the question of whether such restrictions are good, because they aren’t. As National Gun Rights Examiner and Fast & Furious illuminator David Codrea puts it anyone who can’t be trusted with a firearm can’t be trusted without a custodian.
Most gun owners are reasonable people who can handle the responsibility. A small number are idiots, but mandating that those idiots take training classes only results in idiots who took training classes. It doesn’t un-idiot them. Meanwhile it does put barriers up for everyone, in terms of time and money. Which I guess is kinda the point.
A small number of journalists are reasonable people who can handle the responsibility. A large number are idiots.
FIFY
Bingo.
Gave up watching, reading, listening to “journalists” about six-months ago. I now wonder WHY I did not do so sooner. Maybe “ignorance” is really true bliss. I am a much happier camper now.
You’ve got it backwards. Ignorance can’t possibly bring bliss.
You need look no further than “journalists” and others from
the anti-civil rights crowd. Seriously, how many liberals do
you know that are actually happy about anything? So many
of these antis are so keyed up they need major anxiety
medication.
What you’re feeling is the relief from trying to make sense
of disjointed “logic”; combating over-the-top emotional
pseudo-dramas; and simply trying to dismiss the egregious
amount of sheer idiocy.
As a rule, professional journalists are most likely not to be entrusted with firearms.
Those jackalopes shouldn’t be trusted with pencils.
The reason they object so much to guns has nothing to do with public safety; it’s only about THEIR safety. These people are so incompetent with handling a firearm, they figure the best thing they can do is convince everyone of the inherent “evils” of firearms and thus avoid any scrutiny over their own ineptitude and cowardice. They feel so emasculated anyway, what better way to level the playing field but to take everyone else’s ability to use one.
As far as any thought given to the Constitution or even human history, these people, these panty-wetting progressive libtards don’t want to discuss philosophy, history or any other higher level motivation, or even the notion of tyranny, no, these people are so consumed with “feeling good” today that they will go out of their way to avoid discussing things like tyranny because it doesn’t support their argument. It’s out of sight, out of mind with these people.
We entrust teenagers every day in this country with vehicles that are capable of killing, injuring and damage property with little more than a few hours of teaching and a few hours of practice. The vast majority of gun owners spend an astronomical amount of time in comparison learning how to shoot, how to maintain their firearms and practicing good safety habits. Why is it so hard for people to see this?
+100
(Groaning) “Too…much…logic…must resist it..!
It;s funny, the gummint that people such as the esteemed editorial writer worship entrusts teenagers with fully automatic weapons, tracked vehicles, large caliber cannons and rocket-propelled explosive devices. Some of those teenagers even work with nuclear weapons, and steer billion-dollar ships. Guns, pffffft…
He is OK with that, those “kids” are doing the G’s bidding, acting on behalf of the gummint’s interests.
But, when teenagers have the capability of acting on their own behalf that it is when it effects his delicate sensibilities.
And here in New Zealand we let teenagers loose with a volatile mix of alcohol, energy drinks and synthetic cannabis, and then wonder when chaos and mayhem ensue. Politicians are the cause, and teenagers the effect, of this idiocy.
Although the philosophy behind Constitutional Self-expression is sound, we really don’t need people who don’t know the subjects they are discussing, and are totally unfamiliar with the processes of logic and critical thinking, to be writing wrong-headed, factually incorrect editorials for mass consumption. We therefore recommend a licensing/permit system, with appropriate educational qualifications, for anyone who wants to commercially distribute written accounts of news and opinion. How does that grab you, H-Jeb?
And degreed Journalism and Communications Majors need not apply.
Don’t stop there. What we really need are community organizer high school dropouts such as the Regime recently proposed to sit in all newsrooms across America to monitor and approve all content before it is disseminated to the People.
His best argument would be to point out how places like Alaska and Arizona have turned into the ‘wild west’ with shootouts in the middle of the street and cited the astronomical rise in murders to prove his point. That is it would be if it were true.
Yeah, we don’t want other states turning out like Vermont.
Vermont = bad food except for the Miss Lyndonville Diner, yards of snow each year, raging progressive liberals, and about as many attractive people as a medieval peasant village.
Good gun laws though, except for the silencer ban.
There you go – ‘Vermont got constitutional carry and now they’re buried in snow! Do you want that to happen in South Carolina?’
Wow, really? Been there much?
Vermont has its problems, but not the ones journalists obsess over. Despite the jokes it’s Vermont, not West Virginia, that has lead the nation in rate of incest for decades. I don’t know if that’s been true for the last few years. Median income is rather low, though average is naturally higher. There’s a little hard drug epidemic in Burlington and Rutland. Don’t know about the rest of the state. People think of the towns and cities, but many Vermonters live on small remote farms. Everyone I know that has a place in Vermont is really from somewhere else on the east coast, so Vermonters, guard your rights.
Problem with H-Jeb’s point of view – most people who are handling a gun or who make the decision to buy their first gun are acutely aware of the possibility for things to go wrong. You’re also very aware of this the first time you carry. I’ve known people who chose to carry empty for the first couple weeks. I know people who still carry with loaded magazine and an empty chamber because they want just that little extra protection from some kind of accident.
So it’s been my experience that their fears of a new person buying a gun and confidently striding into the world with no appreciation of the responsibilities isn’t grounded in reality.
Remember dear Shannon Watts “I bought a gun and am gonna carry it while intentionally being as ignorant as possible about it.” And then I’m gonna blog about it? From back in 2012, I believe. The idiots are out there. And they are part of the reason I carry.
It’s _unalienable_ not inalienble. Different words; diffeent meanings.
Um, no. Different words, exact same meaning.
Actually the same word — with an English negative prefix or a Latin negative prefix. They both mean “not removable.”
It seems that some political theorists believe “inalienable” refers to rights that are agreed upon by society and may be removed by society’s agreement (that is, whenever a representative government decides society doesn’t need them), whereas “unalienable,” which appears in the Declaration of Independence, refers to the absolute rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and since those are vague, your benevolent elected representatives will decide what they mean on your behalf).
Exactly. Unalienable can never be revoked or granted because they are inherent in being and confered by our Creator. Inalienable are given and revoked by man or government.
Nowadadays common usage has blurred the distinction. They are, in fact, two separate concepts.
http://www.dailycampus.com/commentary/unalienable-vs-inalienable-a-salient-distinction-1.1742059#.UxJ9bX23O2c
I’d be more persuaded by that columnist’s argument for a distinction if he had come up with any examples of “inalienable rights” that weren’t, in fact, delegated powers (e.g. the government’s inalienable right to tax citizens).
I agree. Both the OED and the Oxford Dictionary of American English treat them as synonyms. In my experience the term came from property law, and refers to things which may not be sold or given away. I would wish that more people understood that rights persist only if we enforce on each other that concept, that rights are things we cannot trade for lucre. Too many people show up each day with a ready price on their rights, willing to sell. They should be ashamed.
As mentioned in another post, perhaps now common usage and how language changes over a couple of hundred years have blurred the distinction. But that would not invalidate the concepts in the Bill of Rights. Consider the usage of Rights as described in the Declaration in Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ”
This clearly states rigts are ours by virtue of our Creator rather than government. In fact, continue reading that paragraph:
” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
So, we are given qualities that are to be defended by our Government because we allow and mandate it. The Bill of Rights _begins_ to enumerate what those rights are. It is an incomplete list since it can be altered (following procedure). Keep in mind these two documents were written about the same time by highly educated and studied individuals having a deep knowledge of words, usage, etymology, and rhetoric – far greater than we common folk have now. I believe they knew exactly what they were saying and provide clear evidence for their meaning between the two documents, the Federalist Papers, and others.
unˈalienable, a.
[un-1 7 b and 5 b.]
= inalienable a.
1611 Cotgr., Inalienable, vnalienable; which cannot be sold, or passed away. 1641 Earl of Monmouth tr. Biondi’s Civil Warres v. 125 Those countries‥which for safety and reputation ought to be unallienable from the Crowne of England. 1688 Answ. Talon’s Plea 27 This Monsieur Talon maintains to be an unalienable right of the Crown of France. 1743 J. Morris Serm. vii. 197 God‥gives all men their being, and has an unalienable claim to their obedience. 1771 Goldsm. Hist. Eng. II. 307 Giving these petty tyrants a power of selling their estates, which before his time were unalienable. 1841 Stephen Comm. Laws Eng. (1874) II. 13 Personal chattels cannot in any instance be rendered unalienable beyond the period prescribed. 1855 Macaulay Hist. Eng. xvii. IV. 115 That all men were endowed by the Creator with an unalienable right to liberty.
As mentioned in another post, perhaps now common usage and how language changes over a couple of hundred years have blurred the distinction. But that would not invalidate the concepts in the Bill of Rights.
It’s not that we don’t understand what you’re saying, it’s that we dispute that there is any distinction between “unalienable” and “inalienable”. Maybe some political theorists and idiots like the author of that editorial have decided to use this nomenclature, but they’re wrong. The plain definitions and history of the words show that they’re wrong. People trying to change the definitions now are purposefully and disingenuously attempting to mislead others. It would be far simpler and more meaningful to call those rights they refer to as “inalienable” as simply “rights”, or where it may apply, “privileges”. They know this, but they’re trying to obfuscate the terms in the minds of the public. Leave the terms “unalienable” and “inalienable” to refer to natural rights; since, as Ing explained above, they are different spellings of the same word. This usage would not affect the Bill of Rights in the slightest.
Consider the usage of Rights as described in the Declaration in Independence:“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” This clearly states rigts are ours by virtue of our Creator rather than government. In fact, continue reading that paragraph: ”That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
So, we are given qualities that are to be defended by our Government because we allow and mandate it.
Yes, humans and citizens have rights, governments have powers. Furthermore, government’s only legitimate use of power is to secure the rights of citizens. When it steps beyond those bounds it becomes unjust and tyrannical. Some rights are natural rights, but some rights exist because of our form of government, and extend from the consent of the governed. Voting is a good example. You’re not endowed by the Creator with a right to vote, had you been born somewhere else, you might not have such a right. But if you are a US citizen and meet the conditions we have set for voting rights as a society, you do have a right to vote, and the government can’t interfere with that right unless it does so following the procedures set forth in the Constitution and by due process. Of course, as we see in the Fifth Amendment, part of the consent of the governed is that we can be deprived of even the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property following the due process of the law. The author of the article you linked fails to recognize this.
The Bill of Rights _begins_ to enumerate what those rights are. It is an incomplete list since it can be altered (following procedure).
It’s an incomplete list not because of the amendment process, but because it would be impossible to list the infinite number of rights retained by the people. I know that any number of legal scholars will disagree with me on this point, but given the plain text of the Ninth Amendment, I would say the Bill of Rights does indeed make provision for all rights, and is thus complete. Government should have no ability to exercise powers not listed in the Constitution (unless it is amended to allow such powers). Any action undertaken by a person that doesn’t infringe upon another’s rights (and is beyond the purview of government’s limited power) should itself be seen as a right. It gets sticky when we get into issues of the commons, but that’s where the term “privilege” comes into its own. You have a right to travel, but when you drive your car on public roads, that’s better referred to as a privilege.
Keep in mind these two documents were written about the same time by highly educated and studied individuals having a deep knowledge of words, usage, etymology, and rhetoric – far greater than we common folk have now. I believe they knew exactly what they were saying and provide clear evidence for their meaning between the two documents, the Federalist Papers, and others.
I too believe that the Founders knew exactly what they were saying and that they were brilliant men. The Constitution doesn’t use either “unalienable” or “inalienable”, much less make any distinction between the two, even though it contains an explicit reference to the rights of life, liberty, and property. Most of us would agree that there is also an unalienable right to self defense. However, the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment isn’t necessarily the same thing. An amendment could further clarify and expand that right, or might reduce it. Luckily, the text finishes up with “shall not be infringed,” which clearly establishes that the government lacks the power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms in the same manner that it can regulate the right to vote. As long as the text reads the way it does it should be considered a unlimited right, even if it’s not considered by some to be an unalienable one.
All I can say is please stop buying into the false dichotomy presented by people like the author of the article you linked above. Refuse to use or recognize their false terms. Don’t play their silly game. Most importantly, don’t let them convince you or others to let the government curtail any of our rights.
Yes, people should be aware of the many roadblocks we put in place to deny the citizen the right to carry, they should also be trained to the high standards of law enforcement(be able to hit a small circle at 10 yards on an innocent civilian), further fixed it for you hjeb.
How about training everyone to the high standards of the NYPD (everyone but the person you’re shooting at) ?
A citizen would have got 10 years for that.
These people have no clue that a few miles up the road in North Carolina, open carry is legal by anyone almost anywhere. I live in SC, work in NC and enjoy open carrying on my lunch breaks and running errands after work. Especially in the upity Target right down the road 🙂
Well done sir.
What I find most annoying if you can call it that is that people get their panties in a bunch. The reality is most are responsible. Sure there are individual outliers but over all we see crime drop and people go about their lives safer. But then again when has the antis argument ever been based in reality?
What you have to realize is that most newspapers in SC are owned by northern syndicates and their editorial staff reflects those northern liberal views. I’d have to go look to see that is the case with the Herald but it’d surprise me if they weren’t.
The editorial staffs of SC papers very seldom reflect the views of the average South Carolinian.
South Carolina has always been a plantation state, one in which a few people own an awful lot of land, often held in forestry companies or other agricultural enterprises. It’s no surprise that the newspapers and other media fall into that pattern.
+1 for that. The Post and Courier is the worst of them all.
Yep. A northern liberal editorial staff.
“The Herald-Journal was acquired in 1985 by the New York Times Co., and was a member of the New York Times Regional Media Group through 2011. The Herald-Journal became a member of the Halifax Media Group on Jan. 6, 2012.”
If this journalist stirs the pot, get’s people hot under the collar, get’s his pathetic writings re-posted, then he has done what he set out to accomplish. He doesn’t dare bash any war effort, that would get the IRS on his stupid ass, he’s too chicken to bash religion so what else is there to stir emotions, GUNS! The best way to shut down the brain dead at MDA, and SJWNBTD (Stupid Journalist With Nothing Better To Do) is to not respond to their idiocy. Ignore them. They hate that the most.
Exactly. That’s the number one reason gun confiscation gets so much air time. Every other issue has proponents and backers much more powerful in money and connections than guns. The idea of training people to be considerate of others, forcing them to be if necessary, is anathema to many. Even Bloomberg himself was loath to give up his sovereign corporate CEO right to badger people whom he didn’t value. Better we should have a minimum standard of behavior which the high and low alike agree to enforce. Sure, good luck with that one.
Hmm, that’s funny. I carry at church and neither a Supreme Being nor Court has ever struck me down.
It seems that the article here went off track when talking about CCW versus gun ownership laws. Right in here:
“Finally H-Jeb brings up their ultimate objection:
In addition, a number of lesser crimes don’t limit an individual’s ability to own a gun, but they do prohibit someone convicted of those offenses from obtaining a concealed weapon permit. If Bright’s bill were passed, people who break those laws would be legally able to carry weapons.
The only problem is, as far as I can tell from an intensive perusal of the relevant statutes, blogs and discussion threads, H-Jeb is simply flat out wrong (another case for Mandatory Factual Safety Education legislation). The statutes, SC SLED site and application all state that if you can’t possess a firearm under federal or state law you can’t get a permit. In other words, people who break “those laws” would not be able to legally carry a weapon[2]. The only possible exception I can find is a footnote from a SC CWP class website which states:”
H-Jeb is regretting the idea that people who do qualify for gun ownership but not CCW because of “lesser crimes” would be entitled to their right to carry in they manner they prefer under the new laws. He is arguing that rights are good and fine until you want to exercise them, since at that point the state needs power to relegate those rights into privileges. All are equal, but some are more equal. In other words the status quo in most states.
H-Jeb’s assertion is wrong, but his statement to support his assertion is correct. People formerly denied CCW but not ownership would in the future be allotted the full measure of their rights.
Mr. Bright’s bill was shot down by establishment ‘pubs due to his race against Graham. This was nothing more than political favorites. If Bright scored a win this big with gun owners, Lindsay Graham would look anemic in the eyes of conservatives come primary time.
The very vocal minority will try to chalk this up to a bipartisan win, but most voters actually paying attention know better. Articles like this are the opposite of what you hear in chambers from the vast majority of speakers when the public comment hearings were open.
These are the 4 traitorous republicans that opposed Constitutional Carry in South Carolina.
Write them and let them know their job is in jeopardy next election (2016).
Senator Larry Martin (Republican – Pickens)
(803) 212-6610 [email protected]
Senator Greg Gregory (Republican – Lancaster)
(803) 212-6024 [email protected]
Senator Paul Thurmond (Republican – Charleston)
(803) 212-6172 [email protected]
Senator Luke Rankin (Republican – Horry)
(803) 212-6410 [email protected]
Hi to You All. We all must be careful that we are not selective in our understanding of the wise writers of the Second Amendment. For those wise folk obviously took firearm ownership to be of the utmost importance for liberty, safety, self-defense and survival. Given that, they took great care of their firearms on a very regular basis, they trained with them regularly to become very proficient, they maintained situational awareness, and they banded loyally together in family, village, and district; then later in state and national groupings to achieve great deeds. This was about freedom and the common good. Now 230 years later, in the age of the Internet, so many citizens appear to have conveniently forgotten the unspoken demand on all that the Second Amendment requires of us all. Namely, we must maintain our firearms, clean and in constant readiness. We must train ourselves, our family and our friends regularly to be very proficient in the effective use of our firearms. The greatest threat to gun owners and the value of the US Constitution are idiot gun owners who behave badly , post dumb / inflammatory / cowardly forum comments and mindless You Tube videos for the sake of ego. This enduring ‘evidence’ is all the gun haters need to limit and curtail gun ownership. Thanks to Edward Snowdon, we all now know that all our financial transactions, telephone, electronic and Internet activity is being recorded and stored in readiness to be used against us.
Just as the original Patriots joined and trained together for the common good, so we gun owners and citizens of good report must unite in fraternal harmony. We need to show respect and support to each other by word and deed so that we fulfil the unwritten but well understood requirements of the Second Amendment. All mass shootings have been committed by known crazies and abetted by close associates who knew of the problems; but did nothing.
Every generation must produce united Patriots or freedom is taken away from us all. Consider the 50 years since the murder of JFK and how many personal liberties have been stripped away from free people by their own government, the mega rich and rapacious corporations.
Ask yourself, “What is required me, for this to be The Land of the Free and the Home of the brave”?
I would put forward that a large number of people purchase and even carry guns without getting the knowledge about the gun itself or the law. See: every dumb rapper or professional sports player who buys a gun, and carries it (unregistered) tucked in his pants, holsterless, in a nightclub in San Fran.
I’d bet my guns there are thousands more regular citizens who buy a Glock or a wheelgun, get no training, load it and put it in the nightstand. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Anyone with an ounce of wit, life experience, intelligence, or reading comprehension can puzzle out the dangerous end and the trigger of a pistol or long gun. What more training is really needed? You know the thing is dangerous and you could kill someone with it. So, don’t be an idiot with it. People who are inherently idiots or irresponsible will not have that problem solved with training.
Also, I like the child rearing analogy. Imagine having to go through a 72-hour class and an interview before you were issued a Permit to Have Child (1). And all the regulations about what kind of house you could have, and neighborhood, and food, and safety devices, and etc etc etc….
Reply didn’t work, oops.
Comments are closed.