Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Man's need to feel secure trumps Second Amendment? I don't think so Mr. Jans St. David

The Benson News-Sun had an interesting letter to the editor that I had to comment on entitled Another View on the Second Amendment. Go read the letter, then come back here.

The first thing to note is that the author, one James E. Jans St. David is your typical uninformed individual on just how dangerous the situation he found himself in really was.  People don't shoot up public places very often, and in fact you are probably more likely to be hit by lightening than you are to be killed in such a situation.

Now, I carry my weapon concealed to avoid the sort of people like Mr. Jans St. David getting hysterical and either moving, or worse, calling the police about a man with a gun.  I also don't want to inspire such people to claim, wrongly, that I was brandishing it, or waving it about.  Indeed, the fact that I am carrying is no body's business but my own.  But that is my choice.  Others can make their own choices, and there is certainly a school of thought that open carry is needed to desensitize the public to guns, and to show that normal people carry them all the time.  It is a valid claim, but I don't see a weapon as a political agenda, I see it as a tool of self defense.

Mr. Jans St. David makes a startling claim with this:
My point is that in exercising his Second Amendment rights this young man just took away my freedom. Since when does the Second Amendment say that this young man has to wear his pistol in occupied public spaces, especially in these times when random shootings are so common? It seems to me that even in the Wild West, in some towns where violence was common, the town’s people made the cowboys check their guns when entering town as a safety factor from gun violence.
Notice how Mr. Jans St. David claims that the man took away his freedom. What did the man do, one wants to know? He says the man was looking around, and texting. Did the man have a sort of super vision that pinned people to the wall? No? Did he threaten, or make a move to make demands on anyone? No? It seems to me that it was Mr. Jans St. David who took away Mr. Jans St. David's freedom. The man with the gun could not, and did not control Mr. Jans St. David's irrational reactions.  Rather, he did that himself, and then simply transferred his emotions back on the man with the gun. So let's be clear, shall we, on who did what to whom. Furthermore, his behavior, that of looking around that so offended Mr. Jans St. David, I recognize as maintaining situational awareness so that you aren't surprised. I do this myself. If your purpose in carrying a gun is self defense, the most important form of self defense is situational awareness, knowing who is around you, and what they are doing.
Although I haven’t owned a hand gun or rifle in years, I believe everyone has the right to own a gun, but I think there is a proper place to display it. There is nothing wrong with taking the weapon to the shooting range or in the country while hiking, but why must you take it into a public place where families go for shopping or entertainment. Locking the weapon in the trunk while going to the Dairy Queen would seem appropriate to me, unless of course you are an officer of the law who is required to carry a weapon in the line of duty.
Now I am getting truly offended here. Mr. Jans St David very generously believes in a person's Second Amendment rights, then propose that that person shouldn't be allowed to exercise those rights. Oh, he is fine with having a gun at a shooting range, or out in the country hiking, unless one supposes if he and his family are on the same trail. Then, well...he'll  just have to lock his gun in the trunk, no doubt. If it were to happen that someone should come into the Dairy Queen with evil intentions, it does little good if the man with a gun has his gun in the trunk of his car. The whole reason he is carrying is self defense, but here you propose to disarm him any time he is in a place where pleasant activites are going on, and families might not want anyone to harsh their mellow. And irresponsible weasel that he is, our hero can expect little help from the likes of Mr. Jans St. James.

Meanwhile, the author is fine with police officers carrying because they are required to. If his letter is to be credited, then police officers must be a super breed of men, with greater moral judgement, and special powers of deduction not possessed by the ordinary citizen. Such special powers are no doubt brought to the pinnacle of perfection by the special training that the police receive. Of course the reality is somewhat different. The police are drawn from the ranks of ordinary citizens, are given a few weeks of special training, and sent out to keep order with their wits, a gun and a badge. They have no special powers, they are almost never there when a crime happens. That is not to bash the police, but to convey the reality that when you need them most, the police are usually somewhere else. It may come as a surprise to Mr. Jans St. David, but the police have no power that he did not delegate to them, and that he can not just as easily take back. Thus, while it makes sense to leave crime busting to those assigned to do it, when your are attacked, you must defend yourself as best you can.
I belive that storing your weapons in a locked gun safe is appropriate to limit access to only the owner and that it is not necessary to wear your weapon in public places. If you can’t take your weapon on a plane or in a ballpark to watch a baseball game or other public event, why should you be able to compromise my feeling of security/freedom at the Dairy Queen or any other public facility?

Are we reaching a point where to satisfy the Second Amendment that the baby sitter comes over wearing a pistol or the preacher at church wears a side-arm? How far does the Second Amendment reach?
So, now we get down to it. Mr. Jans St. David believes that he has a right, not mentioned in the Constitution, to feel safe and secure, all snuggled up in his security blanket, where nothing can ever go wrong, and this "right" trumps the Second Amendment.  But reality is quite different from Mr. Jans St. David's world.  In the real world, criminals with guns, obtained illegally in most cases, go where they will regardless of "gun free zones," gun control laws, and midnight vigils with candles, where people make weepy speeches and sing "Kum-by-ya."  In fact, many preachers do discretely carry a gun to protect themselves and their parishioners.  Preachers are often more aware of reality than most, and also take their responsibilities as Shepard to their flocks very seriously.  As for baby sitters, if they are qualified to carry a gun, that to me would be a plus.  


  1. This preacher (and former associate pastor, for the record) carried all the time. Still does, for that matter.

    Mr. Whatsisname has no "right" to feel safe & secure, except for that recognized by the 4th Amendment - which protects him from government, military & police intrusion. Not at all what he envisions.

    Too bad reading was never a part of his curriculum.

  2. Rev. Paul,

    Ha Ha! I was thinking of you when I wrote that, but I do know of a number of preachers here abouts who do carry. They often must go into places most of us avoid-sorry about that-but its their calling. They also provide security in the event someone does come into the church and start killing.

    Be safe,

  3. He's a typical libtard.

    His use of the 1st Amendment has made *ME* feel less safe.....

  4. drjim,

    Good point. The First Amendment is a powerful tool in the hands of a skillful propagandist. As I have noted before, ideas do not die, as illustrated by Marxism which survives as a political system despite the fact it has not been successful anywhere at anytime.

    Hope you are feeling better, and my thoughts and prayers are with you,


  5. I support the mans choice to carry openly but would never do so myself because it's my belief that it just makes a person the first target to anyone intent upon harming innocents. Better to be concealed and keep the element of surprise IMO.

  6. Jerome,

    Thanks for commenting. You are correct from a tactical perspective. As long as your weapon is concealed, you have choices. Another good reason to carry concealed.