rebuttal to Holster Dangerous Gun Laws article

Is this utter ignorance or intentional lying and fear mongering by the writer who chose to leave the piece nameless? You can read the article here. 

Let's debunk his claims:

First, the writer claims this bill would allow untrained people to carry guns down Kings St. or at the Battery in Charleston. 
Those people are already carrying guns untrained. They are called criminals and thugs. 


Second, the writer advocates for our state training. Our state mandated training is more like qualifying. Unless the instructor takes it upon his or herself to add actual training to the course there is very very little. 

Third, the writer is either afraid of guns himself or is fear mongering because the thought of seeing an open carried gun is so horrible and dangerous. This goes for Charleston police chief Mullen. No surprise with Mullen. He is a city police chief. These guys aren't elected. They're appointed by the mayor and they tend to be very anti-liberty.

Fourth, the writer claims state politicians are reluctant to make it harder for criminals to purchase guns. Currently it is ILLEGAL for criminals to purchase guns and most of the time a criminal will steal or purchase from the black market. They rarely walk into a gun store and purchase a gun and if they do and have a criminal record they most likely will be unable to purchase a gun. 

Fifth, the writer advcates for background checks. Background checks do one thing and that is potentially stop law abiding citizens from getting protection immediately. There are documented cases in states with longer background check where a law abiding individual who felt threatened was either killed or seriously injured while waiting to be cleared by a background check. 
The writer brings up Emanuel Church shooter Dylan Roof's ability to purchase a gun due to a failed background check. This happened due to human error and an extended waiting period would not have prevented that sad day from happening. Also, a parishioner at the church carried a gun with him but because of state laws he could not carry in the church. Imagine the outcome had he been carrying. 

Sixth, the writer claims background checks do not take place at gun shows and that is factually incorrect. Any dealer at a gun show must run a background check just like he would in a store front. 

Finally, the writer says it is shameful legislators want to respond to one of the worst massacres in state history by scrapping the current system and trading it for reckless open carry. Obviously the writer does not understand the permitting system will remain in place for reciprocity purposes and for those that feel better taking the qualifying course. 

Ultimately the writer hasn't a clue what liberty is and how it works. As law abiding citizens we have a God-given right to self defense. This is protected by the second amendment. It doesn't say anything about permitting, paying a fee, or training to exersize that right. Rights are inherent. Government does not grant them. 

Should a gun owner train? Absolutely! Train. Train again, and then train some more but the government should have absolutely no control over this whatsoever.




Showing 2 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

Donate Volunteer Find an Event