Earlier we took an initial look at the notion of so-called constitutional carry. There are some among us who say something along the line of, “Sure, I’m for constitutional carry, but I think there should be some kind of training requirement.” A right is not conditional, except where criminal behavior causes the loss of such rights. For example, if an individual commits and is convicted of a felony, that individual forfeits his right of freedom, possession of a firearm and, occasionally, his life—or at least it used to be that way.
No other right enumerated in the Constitution requires education, training or other form of governmental consent. So the question begs, why would we require some form of training to exercise our Second Amendment rights?
Before we get into this, let me state that I absolutely believe that anyone who carries a firearm—or any other weapon for that matter—would greatly benefit from getting some proper training. As for what proper training, that’s a subject for another blog.
But the question of self-defense is another matter. There is no formal training in being a thug, along with proper certification (suitable for framing) and such, so why would it be required to have formal training and certification authorized by the government that we as individuals are supposed to be protected from by the Second Amendment? Thugs learn their trade from older thugs—mentors, if you will. The rest of us should learn self-defense—including firearms marksmanship and handling—from our fathers (or, in deference to the modern day, mothers, who, by the way, are often able to shoot the pants off the father or sperm donor).
Regularly, people cite that in order to drive an automobile or fly a plane that a license is required. The assumption is that the training one gets renders the successful test taker a capable driver or pilot. Aside from the fact that assumption is profoundly naïve, these people have forgotten—or, perhaps, are simply unaware—that driving and flying are privileges granted by the state. Possession of a firearm is a right from God—or whatever creator you may choose to believe in—and codified by the federal government in the Constitution.
Too, there is this prevailing notion that somehow the government exists to protect us from bad guys or even ourselves. I am reminded of a conversation I had with Rod Herrett of Herrett’s Gun Stocks about three years ago as to why he insists on referring to the non-metallic portion of a handgun that is usually gripped by the shooter as “stocks.” His reply was along the lines of, “Back in the ’60s, my dad put in a bid for the wooden scales used on .45 Autos. The government called ’em stocks then, so my dad said if that was good enough for our government, it was good enough for him.” My how things have changed.
I would argue that given the behavior of most city, state and certainly the federal governments lately, no one can say with any degree of accuracy or trust that “government is your friend.” If anything, the government has shown us that it is an abusive, conniving, onerous and relentless thug whose only real difference from the ones seen in the streets by much of the population is that government thugs wear Brooks Brothers’ suits. I, for one, have absolutely zero confidence that any government bureaucrat—by that, I mean a person who might be granted the authority to pass judgment on whether a citizen is capable or responsible for handling their own personal self-defense—has enough sense to pour urine from a boot.
And so now we come back to the constitutional carry issue, specifically in those states with more urban populations and a general lack of knowledge, respect and responsibility regarding firearms. Maryland—specifically Baltimore—is an example due to the events earlier this week. For quite a few years the Democrats (or Progressives, Marxists, etc. whatever they are calling themselves on a given day) who run that state have relentlessly pursued their roughly 175-year agenda of disarming their constituents. And within that state they have achieved a level of success. Many otherwise good citizens have forfeited their rights to possess firearms. On Monday Baltimore broke out into uncontrollable riots with dozens of vehicles and buildings burned to the ground and widespread looting. The police were either unable to or—more likely—ordered to stand down and not enforce the law.
Back in 1992 a similar riot started in Los Angeles. Shop owners were told by the police to leave their shops; the police would be unable to protect them. A Korean family who owned a business in the area ignored the order and proceeded to arm themselves with common hunting rifles and such. I recall one photo of a guy with a Browning BLR. Their shop was the only one on the block that was not looted or damaged. And I’ll bet they didn’t have any formal training, either.