“It is clear that current gun laws are what helped Jay Lewis in his unfortunate altercation with two men in October where he found it necessary to use his weapon to defend himself. The jury declared him innocent after hearing the 911 tape. The law said Lewis was right,” Rev. Carlos Jayne (above left) of the Iowans for Gun Safety admits, sensibly enough (via desmoinesregister.com). “The terrible results for Lewis came about because the administration of justice kept him (unfairly) incarcerated until his trial. That and the uncaring attitude of his landlord in not diligently finding out where he was, and then throwing out his belongings, made his case an overall terrible situation for him.” OK. Ready?

It is my contention that if House File 2215 had been in effect, with its inherent encouragement of carrying to protect yourself on a “shoot first, ask questions later” basis, the other individuals in the altercation might also very well have been armed, resulting in a real shoot-out.

Lewis was carrying and gave fair warning that he was going to defend himself. There are plenty of hotheads or persons affected by drinking (as the others were in this instance, it seems) who could escalate similar situations into real gun battles or massacres.

And in conclusion . . .

We employ law enforcement to protect the public and that should be our thrust. Provide them what they need to protect us. “Stand your ground” legislation is not the answer.

Please note that Mr. Lewis, a citizen who held a concealed carry permit, was on the phone with the police when he defended his life with his firearm against two vicious thugs. I’ve got to say Carlos’ letter is just . . . awesome.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

33 COMMENTS

    • I find it amusing to imagine that someone would actually type FLAME DELETED when posting. When these started cropping up, at first that’s what I thought people were doing, before I realized it was actually the site admins.

      I’m tempted to start throwing in FLAME DELETEDs in on my own.

  4. I love how the evidence of most states allowing citizens to carry the means to defend themselves and not increasing violent crimes one bit is not enough, because there is not enough evidence for them. Their arguments are irrational and wrongheaded, steeped in the emotional and based on willful ignorance.

    • I worded it this way because I feel “may-issue” is tantamount to being denied the right to carry. Forcing someone to be either influential, rich, or having already become a victim before they show sufficient reason to carry a handgun is clearly stupid. Gun control never affects the rich or criminal, only the honest lower and middle class–ask yourself why your representatives and established media are so afraid of regular folks owning guns who have proved time and again they are the most responsible with guns.

    • “Their arguments are irrational and wrongheaded, steeped in the emotional and based on willful ignorance”

      And since they also suffer from projection, they assume that those that want concealed carry are IRRATIONAL, WRONGHEADED and STEEPED IN EMOTIONAL-WILLFUL IGNORANCE, and will kill every m-f’er in the room at the drop of the hat, and assume everyone else thinks the same way and therefore there must be law to stop that. I’m just glad that they’re soo afraid of their own self that they would never own a gun themselves. Except for the ones that are hypocrits.

  5. Yeah, because we know the racist thugs of the world have been waiting for a legislative change before they start carrying.

  6. “it is my contention that if House File 2215 had been in effect, with its inherent encouragement of carrying to protect yourself on a “shoot first, ask questions later” basis, the other individuals in the altercation might also very well have been armed”

    Sorry, sir, but I don’t quite see how allowing a homeowner to defend his property has ANYTHING to do with a criminal acquiring a gun.

    yeah, the guy that wrote this must have ADHD or something, because it sounds like he was trying to argue two points right there and got a wee bit mixed up.

  9. I always figured mid-westerners as having more common sense, but there are always exceptions to the rule.

  10. Projection as per usual.

    Since this guy is such a fan of full trust in police omnipresence, here’s an experiment. Ring his doorbell. When he answers, hand him a toy gun and a cell phone. Say “Pretend I’m an armed robber who just broke in. I’m going to abuse and murder your family within three minutes unless you stop me. Which of these do you go for?”

  11. This reasoning makes “we have to pass it to see what’s in it” seem rational in comparison.

  14. Forget about allowing me to defend myself with a weapon. Where can I pick up the taxpayer funded ammunition (free to me), the denial of which would be an unconstitutional restriction of my Second Amendment protected rights? Heck, where is the firearm the government owes me? Where is Sandra Fluke when I need her!

  16. 1) Would referring to Rev. Jayne as a cretin be considered a flame or a cogent observation?
    2) Would it be a fair question to ask him “What color is the sky on your planet?”

  17. Well. At least we don’t have to worry about a skynet uprising anymore. If the AIs start to get uppity, we can just read that statement to them and they will self-destruct just to be free of a world in which such illogicalities exist.

  18. Carlos Jayne has spent his career fighting for criminals and screwing his fellow citizens. Cut him him some slack – he believes that victimhood is a virtue.

  19. Two things you need to know about Carlos Jayne:

    (1) He’s a professional liberal. A retired minister (of a liberal church) who formerly made a nuisance of himself as an agitator for “prison reform.” Defined, of course, as “Stop being so mean to those poor misunderstood victimized convicts.”

    (2) “Iowans for Gun Safety” is Carlos Jayne. Singular. “Iowans” might be true if he has a tapeworm.

  20. If you haven’t read Glenn Beck’s Arguing with Idiots, there is an amazing second amendment chapter talking about stupid arguments against guns and how gun bans and restrictions will never work. Read it, its really good.

Comments are closed.