Monday, September 05, 2016

OH: Clerk Shoots, Kills, Armed Masked Robber

Detectives now say that person attempted to rob the store, armed and masked.
Detectives say the clerk, who has a license to carry a gun, shot and killed the suspect.

More Here


Anonymous said...

Ok, so he is "licensed to carry a gun".
I ask squarely and honestly, what would be the difference if the person was not "licensed"?

It goes from being legitimate self defense to a crime, simply because the actual victim in this example doesn't have a permission slip? The victim becomes the criminal because he exercised his enumerated natural right to self defense without first asking and gaining permission from government?

It occurs to me that this kind of backwardness, this upending of common sense, is one very central reason for the right to arms - both ownership and carriage, to be specifically enumerated, specifically left to the people themselves (not to governments' discretion).

I understand that some people like to stress "carry permit" and "license to carry" so as to dispel the progressive left's arguments that "had there been no gun then nobody would have been shot in this gun crime" but that is bowing to THEIR parameters! That is allowing THEM to frame what is and is not legitimate exercise of right - and by extension what is appropriate government action - like licensing a right.

We have to flip that script, and I submit doing it this way. Go ahead and point out that the victim was exercising his right, point out he had a permit to carry - and then point out (like I did) that had there been no license, no permit, there would have been no difference whatsoever. The PERMIT, the LICENSE, is not what made this an exercise in self defense as a matter of right. Indeed, the permit/license is a needless, pointless bit of overreach by government that can ONLY serve to leave someone a victim to the criminal because they FEAR government action against them because they have no permission slip.

Remember, exercise of right is what makes this instance legitimate - not a license, not a permission slip.

Anonymous said...

Any license , permit or tax is an infringement by definition. Shall not be infringed means exactly the same today as it did when the ink was drying on the bill of rights. No law concerning the free exercise of the second amendment is constitutional. Any act or law passed by the law makers is not an amendment to the constitutional limitations on all government law makers. I consider it a criminal act by law enforcement to attempt to deny me my right to self defense anytime or anywhere.