Feeding Crocodiles (aka Gun Grabbers) - Women's Holsters

Feeding Crocodiles (aka Gun Grabbers)

Protecting your right to Firearms and Concealed Holsters
There’s an old adage about feeding a hungry crocodile one of your feet, so that it doesn’t eat the rest of you. That might work for a bit, but the problem, you see, is that crocodiles get hungry again … and again … and soon you’re out of body parts you can spare. The day then comes when the croc shows up looking for his regular meal … and finds you lying there, armless, legless, and defenseless.

The Liberal gun-grabbing crowd reminds me greatly of that apocryphal croc, and far too many people on our side of the argument are willing, or even eager, to grab the hacksaw and start portioning our rights out for easier consumption. We all have friends who, despite being proud gun owners, perhaps even CCW practitioners, have said that they can see the sense in some gun laws. “I can live with …” is a common refrain. Universal background checks, waiting periods, assault weapons bans, limits on magazine capacity … all have been described as, “common sense gun laws,” laws. These laws, according to those who propose them, no rational person could oppose. Those of us who do show opposition are painted as extremist gun nuts, unwilling to make even the most reasonable concessions or compromises.

What they fail to recognize or acknowledge in their rush to condemn us for our intransigence are the reasons behind it. These laws may seem like reasonable concessions to those who favor total disarmament. To those of us who view our liberty as a God-given birthright, paid for in American blood, they are blatant efforts to deprive us of that liberty. Incrementally, yes, but the end game is the same.

The mantra of Women's Holsters

Nowhere else in the Constitution can one find such a clear statement of the framers’ intent as in the Second Amendment, nor does the phrase, “… shall not be infringed” appear anywhere else in the document. Obviously, that amendment held special meaning for those who crafted the Constitution. Though grievances between the colonists and the government in London had been mounting for decades prior to April 1775, it was a British attempt to seize arms belonging to the Middlesex county militiamen that ignited open warfare. The men who were charged with laying out the blueprint by which our nation was built did not forget that.

Despite that clear admonition from those with firsthand knowledge of the value of an armed populace, many of those in power today see fit to regard the Second Amendment as little more than an inconvenience, a speedbump on the road to stripping the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. They contort the Constitution like a Cirque de Soleil acrobat in order to find imaginary rights, the likes of which the founders of this nation could not have conceived, yet argue that the clear language of the Second Amendment couldn’t possibly mean what it very clearly says.

In the face of such determined opposition, those who hold our freedom sacred must be just as determined, and far more uncompromising in its defense. On the face, universal background checks may sound like a good idea. After all, no one wants criminals or the mentally unstable to purchase firearms, right?

Except that we already have background checks mandated on every retail Firearms purchase, and have had since 1994. All that the supposed “Universal” background check would add to that would be a virtual ban on all private transactions involving guns. Have you ever sold a shotgun to neighbor? Bought a revolver from a hunting buddy? Do you hope to leave your guns to your children when you’re gone? Can you imagine having to run a NICS background check before completing any of these perfectly legal transactions? How would private citizens perform such checks, or document them? The answer is that they couldn’t, and that is the intent.

Comfort concealed carry for women shouldn't be illegal

What of waiting periods, or assault weapon bans, or magazine capacity limits? All of these assume that those intent on using their weapons to commit violent crimes would care to follow the laws involving the purchase of those weapons. Waiting periods seldom inconvenience criminals, as they rarely purchase their weapons legally. “Assault weapon” bans serve to criminalize a class of firearms based primarily on their appearance! Civilian-legal assault weapons (in itself a meaningless, nonsensical term) are no more or less deadly than your grandfather’s Marlin lever-action .30-30. And I’m still baffled at how a ten-round Glock 23 magazine is perfectly innocent, yet add three cartridges and it becomes a machine of evil.

Yet this is the logic that drives those who would see our rights taken away, those who would leave us defenseless, while empowering those who feel no obligation to obey the law. There are no “common-sense” infringements upon a Constitutionally protected right. As we consider those who seek our vote in 2016, we will be well served to first sort out the crocodiles, and those who would feed them at our expense.

Those are my thoughts. Let me know what you think. - Big John

More Articles by John:

Shooting for 2016 - We Grade the Candidates

Shooting for 2016 - A Response to Comments

Our Newest Collection On-Body for Women:

Femme Fatale Holsters

 



Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.