Warning: This article will require the reader to actually read it in full and watch pertinent, supplied information. Critical thinking is advised.
The Big Picture
We live in a pretty scary world. Not because of ghouls, goblins, ISIS, or gangs, but because of a far more imbedded threat to the freedom of the American public.
In today’s world, it’s becoming more and more commonplace to see individuals in positions of power and control that are generally reserved for those with years upon years of “higher education” making choices that are a slap in the face of anyone with common sense or the slightest bit of intellect. Criminals are now “misunderstood,” Illegal Aliens are now “undocumented,” and lots of people believe they are entitled to getting things for free without working for them. All courtesy of our representatives and folks with pull behind their names.
Examples of such activity are all around us. Whether we reference the decision to call the riots in Maryland a State of Emergency that only warranted our National Guard equipped with empty magazines, the idea that we can spend our way out of a national debt, giving illegal aliens greater benefits and legal leeway then the citizens of the invaded country, or the former Secretary of State getting away with destroying subpoenaed evidence, the end result is the same – someone in power is either too big an idiot to ever have tied their own shoes on their own, or their actions are 100% intentional with an agenda behind the wheel.
As a responsible citizen, trying to wrap our hear around every person in some position of power or title who is trying to control the “little people” on a national scale can be too daunting a task. And so, with a “Think Globally, Act Locally” approach, if all of us start to free our backyards from such threats to freedom, we might actually get somewhere.
Like many other states, the residents of the state of Michigan are subject to some of the most ill-conceived, contradictory, and asinine firearm laws in the whole of the Union. One giant point of contention recently is the law that responsible citizens who may open carry their firearm in public and also conceal carry their handguns in public with state-issued permits, may not carry a concealed handgun in a school at all, and also may not open carry a firearm on school grounds…unless they have a concealed pistol license (CPL).
Yes. You read that correctly. Law abiding citizens may open-carry a firearm with or without a CPL in public at any time. They may also conceal-carry with a CPL in public except in “Pistol Free Zones” (PFZs). A law-abiding non-CPL holder cannot exercise their 2A rights at any time on school grounds and a CPL holder MUST open-carry their firearm to be within the confines of the law.
If you have a nosebleed from that last part I apologize, but the derp keeps coming.
I would be wasting your time if I focused on the take of Michigan state Democrats regarding this issue as the blue party continues to try and whittle away gun rights at every turn all while MI State Senator Virgil Smith, a strong supporter of gun control recently opened fire in a wild barrage of gunfire towards his ex-wife’s car after assaulting her at his home in Detroit.
What does need to be discussed is so-called “Pro-gun” politicians like Michigan’s very own Senator Mike Green (R) who has openly voiced opposition to the exercising of 2nd Amendment rights in schools and would instead ask all law abiding citizens to pay for and get certified on an “advanced” CPL that would allow them to carry concealed weapons in PFZs to include schools.
This ardent supporter of citizens rights has chosen to pander to the emotional masses and would require his neighbors to pay more in time and money all to have the “right” to cover a firearm with a piece of cloth so as to not upset the delicate flowers of society. You can read the open letter written to Sen. Green regarding his stance (that has yet to be responded to) here.
Yet another example of someone in a position of power who either did not understand the oath he took when taking office, or that is intentionally working against it. It seems far too much to ask to have a representative and defender of the people give no ground when it comes to the rights of the citizenry.
Recently, a responsible citizen who visited a family member’s concert at an Ann Arbor, MI school was criminalized by a group of parents who were scared of the openly carried handgun securely holstered on the person’s hip. The ridiculous panic of “grown adults” moved the Ann Arbor School Board to ban all firearms on Ann Arbor School grounds – an illegal act. Currently, the school system is being sued by Michigan Gun Owners over their actions and the school has threatened to go on “lock down” should any parent decide to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights on campus in the interim.
Emerging from the cloud of asshattery in the whole mess, was a moveon.org petition started by local Ann Arbor Psychiatrist Sonja Lewis, who also had a daughter at the concert in question.
In an interview with WXYZ Detroit, Dr. Lewis states her case to the people of Michigan.
In this stunning and vivid video, Sonja Lewis proves to be a poster child for all of the emotionally driven and factually void groups such as Moms Demand Action as she admits that, “criminals will be criminals” yet continues to demand for the disarmament of responsible citizens.
A Case Study
It’s here that we as freedom-loving responsible Americans need to take a critical look at the type of person who would have us disarmed, silenced, searched, etc.
As mentioned above, Dr. Sonja Lewis is a Psychiatrist in the state of Michigan. As such, she was required to complete roughly a decade of education past high school to attain her medical degree, and then had to complete residency. Google defines a Psychiatrist as “a medical practitioner specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”
To start breaking down an “educated” member of the public in regards to her stance on firearms, we can categorize Dr. Lewis or any like her into two primary groups:
- A person who owns/carries a firearm or
- A person who does not
Easy to say, if Dr. Lewis owns or carries a firearm, her position would be that of a hypocrite like Sen. Diane Feinstein of CA who has a concealed carry permit, yet would have her citizens disarmed. For the sake of this argument, let’s say that Dr. Lewis walks the walk and would not have anyone in her home or around her be allowed to carry a firearm. As a citizen of the United States, it’s important that all of us realize that to choose NOT to exercise one’s rights is just as important as the choice to do so. It’s when we demand others match our stance where a violation has occurred.
From the interview, we know that the armed citizen watching the concert prompted her action. “[It was] disturbing and upsetting to see a gun” due to her daughter also being in attendance.
Leaning on her bona fides, Dr. Lewis considers her stance a “public health and safety issue.” Taking a medical professional at her word that spent a roughly a decade to certify as such, we should assume that she would use factual evidence to back up a position that would call for the destruction of her neighbor’s rights. In doing so, we are forced to assume that:
- She transports her daughter and other loved ones in a transportation method other than a motor vehicle (~2.2 million injured, 30,808 killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2009 according to the NHTSA)
- That no alcohol is allowed in the household (~88,000 alcohol related deaths annually according to the CDC, 10,076 alcohol related motor vehicle deaths in 2013 according to the NHTSA)
- That she and her daughter stay away from medical facilities (~220k-440k medical malpractice deaths in US annually, Sep 2013, volume 9 Journal of Patient Safety)
We could continue on with our assumption with bodies of water, hammers, sports, tobacco, etc, but with a search of issues Dr. Lewis has interviewed on, to date I have not found any calls to ban cars and booze from the populace.
We also must look at the apparent self-diagnosis of an “educated” adult who would have everyone disarmed, including herself. What should we think of someone who can be certified to practice medicine, drive a car, vote, or drink that feels that humans cannot safely operate a simple firearm responsibly? Does Dr. Lewis have friends that she joins for drinks? Does she allow them to drive her daughter from point A to B without her present?
By having such a absolutist stance based on a “health and safety issue,” she in her actions states clearly that her group of friends and colleagues, even those people who she has asked for signatures on her petition, are not competent enough to bear arms as responsible adults no matter how hard they work at it or if they choose to even exercise such a right.
Based on such assumptions, we start to see an individual:
- who chooses not to bear arms
- who demands that all others be disarmed
- who does not trust their neighbor with responsibility
- who does not trust themselves with responsibility
- who does not hold people accountable
- who holds inanimate objects accountable
- who fears one object that can take a life but not others that pose a far greater threat
- who through ignorance or intentional action ignores facts
- who would trade freedom for the appearance of safety
- who can offer no factual justification for actions
- who bases decisions on emotion
- who by doing the above, places themselves, loved ones and society in danger
Imagine the blatant hypocrisy of a person who would have their neighbor disarmed based on an absolute lack of trust in their ability to act responsibly with a firearm, yet would allow a child to play at that same person’s house under that very same neighbor’s supervision.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness defines mental illness as “a condition that impacts a person’s thinking, feeling or mood and may affect his or her ability to relate to others and function on a daily basis.”
Food for thought.
How does the law abiding, responsible citizen deal with so many dangers in our midst? Through education, training, and holding people responsible for irresponsible actions, a member of society cannot remove danger, but can mitigate it as much as possible without treading on the rights of others.
Responsible Americans have been carrying guns for centuries while laws with consequence act against irresponsible individuals who commit criminal acts against their neighbors. The mere chance that a person could act irresponsibly is not a reason to deprive the populace of any right, and it is in the very definition of our Republic.
How does the law abiding, responsible citizen deal with those who would take our rights from us? Although the issue identified in this article directly orbits around the rights of every American to keep and bear arms, this type of diluted thinking is attacking all American rights across the nation. Now more than ever do responsible citizens need to get involved with their local, state, and national groups whose mission revolve around the upholding of our rights. We must continue to demand our representatives uphold their oaths all while we work to ensure that we do not tread on the rights of our neighbor.
Americans have had so many facets of our freedom whittled away by those who cannot even justify their actions with a single fact, signed away in bills that have gone unread, or through criminal pandering to appease the masses.
We the people have the freedom to get involved or stand back and watch it all disappear.
The choice is yours.