Over 15o French citizens were brutally murdered in a co-ordinated attack today from ISIS, just days after the Islamic jihadist group massacred 43 in in Beirut.
Six months ago, The Islamic jihadist group ISIS listed Carlsbad as one of the 100 cities on their “target list” as well as naming San Diego-based active duty service members on that list.
You would think the knuckleheads who run ISIS would heed Admiral Yamamoto’s advice but alas, Bill Gore wasn’t San Diego County Sheriff in the 1940s. He is today and he is intentionally flouting the law by denying law-abiding, vetted, and trained citizens, their God given and constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment is not just for self-defense; it’s for the common defense. Stated pragmatically, if you are shopping at the Carlsbad Outlet Stores, and a few Islamic terrorists run in, and start spraying the crowd with automatic weapons, a CCW holder (or many CCW holders), unholster their weapons and eliminate the threat. You could always call 9-1-1 (and you should) but the death toll could rise as you wait. Philosophically speaking, that’s what the Founders had in mind when they talked about a “well regulated militia” in the Second Amendment. The Founders believed that citizens should be armed (if they choose to be armed) to provide for the common defense.
The threat is real; ask a Parisian. Paris has suffered two attacks in ten months from Islamic terror groups, ISIS has threatened your neighbor San Diegans and your sheriff chose to leave you defenseless.
Am I being dramatic? I am because “Je Suis un San Diegan.” Aux armes, citoyens!
Comments 18
Brian,
I am glad to see a supporter of gun rights finally take the lead from those opposed to guns and exploit a horrific tragedy to make a political point.
Tragedy beyond our comprehension to ever place logic on. Our ability to protect one’s life and the lives of others is not political, however. Oh, I see, it’s too soon. Far better to make the point after the memorials are done, is that it?
Hey, man, like, what we need are, like, more Coexist bumper stickers, man.
Author
This isn’t political; I’m worried about what’s next.
Would ISIS attack at :
…a Chargers game, a Taylor Swift concert, on the Coaster? Ask the Parisians if that’s possible.
…the La Jolla Beach and Tennis Resort? Ask the Tunisians if that’s possible.
…the Mission Valley Mall? As the Lebanese if that’s possible
….the LGBT Community Center in Hillcrest? Ask the Turks if that’s possible.
…outside the Museum of Man? Ask the Texans if that’s possible.
…in the Gaslamp District, killing cops? Ask the Danes if that’s possible
…in the UT newsroom? Ask the Parisians (again) if that’s possible
….by taking hostages at Lestat’s Coffee House? Ask the Australians if that’s possible.
…by chasing Escondido cops with a hatchet? Ask the NYPD cops in Queens if that’s possible
….shooting a guard at the Mt Soledad Memorial? or running over two Marines, on liberty in downtown Oceanside? Ask the Canadians if that’s possible.
…attacking cops in La Mesa with a knife or trying to behead a bystander in El Cajon? Ask the Austrailians (again) if that’s possible.
–shooting up fellow Marines, on Camp Pendleton? Ask the soldiers at Ft Hood if that’s possible.
Finally, could ISIS attack by blowing up the finish line, at the Rock and Roll marathon? Ask Bostonians if that’s possible.
This isn’t political at all. This is about safety and common defense, Bill Gore needs to follow the law
(Don’t even ask New Yorkers about highrise buildings.)
I didn’t realize that the gun control debate was no longer a political issue. I must have missed the memo. Thank you Barry and Brian for catching me up.
Law abiding citizens having the ability to protect their lives in the face of mortal danger is not political. The government viewing that ability as a problem — that’s political.
Hypocrisy,
I am curious as to your ethic. Is there such a thing as a moral standard in your belief system? If so, would you mind sharing it?
Would you take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution if we defined it’s meaning in the context of natural law?
Thank you. I think this will be helpful in understanding the answers you share here and on other posts.
Eric,
My personal ethics are based on two principles:
1. Integrity – I try to do what I say at all times even when it is not convenient. I believe that integrity is the only thing in this world that cannot be taken away from. One has to voluntarily give it up.
2. The Golden Rule
As to your second question, please explain what you mean by “natural law” and then I will gladly answer.
My comment in this post shouldn’t be read as anti-gun. Quite the contrary, I am a strong supporter of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. I was simply pointing out that pro-gun advocates are generally upset when gun-control advocates use a tragedy as a reason to get more restrictions and in this case, Brian was using tragedy as a reason to ease restrictions.
I read this blog because the ideas posted challenge my beliefs and make me look at ideas in a different way. I comment in the hope that I can do the same for other readers.
Gore not allowing subjects the right to carry is no different then Obama importing tens of thousands of middle eastern murderers.
Those who are put in charge of our safety could really care less. Power and money are the only things that matter to them.
My advice is to protect yourself and your loved ones. If that means ignoring unjust laws then so be it.
Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and universally cognizable through human reason. (i.e. all men are created equal, theft and fraud are evil etc….)
I’m all for supporting law enforcement. They have a difficult job and in my opinion, do their best to protect the citizens of San Diego.
But the police can’t be everywhere and they are usually not on time when bad things happen. When the stuff hits the fan, there is no time to call the police. It’s up to all of us to protect ourselves. We need to be our first line of defense.
France has very strict gun laws and the police were on very high alert but the Muslim terrorists were still able to get guns and grenades and use them. The result was tragically predictable. The people of Paris could not protect themselves and fight back because they had no weapons. By the time the police reacted, hundreds of people were dead or wounded.
Paris should be a huge wake up call for Sheriff Gore. Follow the law, and issue CCW permits now. Sheriff Gore, the life that a CCW citizen saves because he is armed and can fight may be your wife, son or daughter’s life.
Eric,
I would enthusiastically take an oath to uphold the Constitution and do not believe it needs any further clarification as to its basis. We have a Supreme Court whose job it is to determine whether our laws are Constitutional or not. With a few obvious exceptions, this has served us well for better than 200 years.
Perhaps if you explained what would be different and what ills you are trying to correct by inserting “natural law” into the discussion, perhaps I would change my opinion.
Should be, Dan, but I’m not holding my breath–especially for Europe.
When will it be time to set in motion a serious grassroots effort to get rid of Gore? Paris needs to be a call to arms, and in San Diego we cannot answer that call until law abiding citizens have their right to concealed carry permits restored in accordance with the decisions of our courts. Now, not when they can get to it or for any other lame excuse, NOW! Gore must go.
Author
Gore makes one good point; the Legislature (and Moonbeam) screwed up when they passed open carry (at the urging of police chiefs). Gore suggested that his is to follow, not make, law.
We knew CCW permit applications would rise and Gore’s response (show good cause) exhibits how elitist he (like most police chiefs) is. They want to have a monopoly on force but they can’t provide the safety which the monopoly allegedly guarantees.
Gore says his is to follow, not make, law. It’s time he started following the law
It is very important to understand that Sheriff Gore can issue a concealed weapon permit to someone who states “self-defense” as good cause. He is able to do that and it complies with state law.
There is no need to wait for the Peruta case to exhaust all appeals, etc. Gore’s policies are what is in question in the lawsuit. Most sheriffs in CA issue to people who state “self-defense” as the reason they need to carry a concealed weapon.
His ridiculous excuse that the state law is confusing or that state law prevents him from issuing isn’t real. He can issue. He knows it. He won’t issue.
Like there is really any other reason to carry other than self-defense.
Gore carries, why is he so special and we the subjects are not?
Notice I use the term subjects.
People who are armed are citizens, people who are disarmed are subjects.
Those words were first spoken to me 45 years ago by a refuge from Soviet occupied Eastern Europe.
A mistake was made when they hired “Ruby Ridge” in the first place.