The law underscores the state's Wild West reputation, and one of Arizona's most notable law enforcement official defends the right to carry concealed arms.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known across the country as the "toughest sheriff in America" due to his strict enforcement of the law and no-nonsense treatment of criminals, believes the new law works just fine. He isn't concerned there will be more shootings in his state because of it.
"That's a good law," Arpaio said this week. "I support it. People were not shooting each other before the new law was passed when they had the right to open-carry weapons. What's the difference now? Concealed or not, people are not pulling guns out and shooting each other."
What do you think he means when he says people were not shooting themselves before so they won't be now? Does he mean never? Is he saying there never was one single incident before so there won't be now.
No, I guess he's saying what a lot of gun folks say, the number of incidents is acceptable. I suppose he's saying that number won't significantly increase with the new law.
We'll see.
Sedona business owner Brian Wentzel, 32, does not have a carry permit nor intends to get one. For him, he only needs the Constitutional "God-given" right to arm and defend himself.
"People have a right to carry concealed weapons because our rights are given to us by our Creator and not by man," says Wentzel. "They are natural rights and this distinction between where our rights are derived is one of the most important philosophical questions a nation and its people must decide before they write laws."
He said that in America, citizens are born with the rights the founding fathers promulgated. Wentzel says an armed citizenry can only strengthen the nation, protect its principles and ensure tyranny could never take over.
"If you have an armed population in the last hour of tyranny, it will be the final check to the imbalance of power that has been misused and abused," says Wentzel. "That's why the founding fathers knew it was one of the pillars and one of the most important rights every citizen has to protect and defend themselves against the tyranny of their own government."
Why do the pro-gun folks, the reasonable ones I'm talking about, encourage people like Mr. Wentzel? The guy says things like, "the last hour of tyranny," and the "final check to the imbalance of power," and the right to carry concealed weapons is given by "our Creator."
Instead of distancing themselves from lunatics like this, the gun crowd takes up the chant and repeats this nonsense. Or perhaps Wentzel got the ideas from them. Either way, it's lunacy pure and simple.
What's your opinion? Is the sheriff right? Is the new law going to have no impact on the numbers? Is Mr. Wentzel right that concealed carry is a natural right?
Please leave a comment.
"Is the sheriff right? Is the new law going to have no impact on the numbers?"
ReplyDeleteCorrect. There will not be "blood flowing in the streets" or "wild west shootouts".
"Is Mr. Wentzel right that concealed carry is a natural right?"
I don't know about the "concealed" part but owning and arms as well as the right to self preservation is a natural right.
Sadly, the statistics out of AZ don't bear out the fat one's or that lunatic Arpaio's claims.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of firearm murder, AZ ranks fifth out of all the sates and DC. In terms of gun violence, they rank fourth. AZ is also ranked the eighth most dangerous state in terms of overall crime.
The fat one is also wrong about natural rights since there is no such thing as a natural right.
We'll see.
ReplyDeleteYawn. We've been hearing that for the last 20 years as concealed carry laws have caught on in most of the states. The dire predictions of 'blood in the streets' has never materialized and in fact the crime rate has steadily declined. We're to the point that no one is believing the boy who cries wolf.
"...since there is no such thing as a natural right."
ReplyDeleteAs if we needed any further pieces of evidence that Jadefool is totally unhinged from reality, he provides us with one more.
Thanks Jade. That was sage.
Poor Anon.
ReplyDeleteLet us play with him a bit on the subject of natural rights.
If Anon believes there is such a thing as a natural right--why doesn't he tell us where it comes from? Anticipating Anon's answer is easy--he will claim that it comes from the Creator. Or Flying Spaghetti Monster. IOW, you have to believe in some mythical being and that said mythical being has created some set of 'rights' that you possess. Aside from having to believe in some mythical, supernatural power--you also have to believe that these 'natural rights' exist in some sort of codified document somewhere.
We'll wait while Anon gets his certified copy. In the meantime, gentle readers, isn't it amazing that for the millions of years that man has walked upright on this earth--there hasn't existed any kind of 'natural right' such as a right to vote or to be free of warantless searches or the such? That such 'natural rights' have only appeared in the last 200 years?
Maybe Anon's Flying Spaghetti Monster is only 200 years old.
I think Jade's pants are full again, can somebody change him?
ReplyDeleteAs ususal, Jadefool shows us how he misunderstands everything about anything.
ReplyDeleteNatural rights exist because of nature, whether nature exists because of a Creator, or a Flying Pasta, or Gaia, or Mother Nature and Father Time, or Mother Earth and Father Sky. Throw out whatever mythical belief system you want, Jade, it makes no difference to the concept of natural rights, unless you are claiming the natural rights had to come from somewhere specific, which is not what I said.
As to whether men had the right to speak up, and forage for food, and defend themselves when they were cave men, I'd say if you don't accept that, then you're an even bigger moron than I previously had accepted.
The rights of men were long held to be understood, and first codified by the Magna Carta, which was a bit further back than 200 years. A lot of our "common law" comes from that document's profound writing.
All of that is irrelevant because no one is arguing (except you) that any document gives us these rights, but merely enumerates them.
We all have the right to speak up and let our thoughts be heard, if we want. In some places, that right is being trampled upon by repressive governments. That doesn't make the right any less a right.
And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is only about 15 years old, since it first appeared on the 'net.
I'm beginning to think you really are the stupidest person on earth.
"In terms of firearm murder, AZ ranks fifth out of all the sates and DC. In terms of gun violence, they rank fourth. AZ is also ranked the eighth most dangerous state in terms of overall crime."
ReplyDeleteThey also rank 2nd in per capita numbers of illegal immigrants.
Of course, there is no connection between those who break the law and those who break the law.
FWM and RuffRidr, I didn't say anything about blood running in the streets. I suggested there'll be an increase.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you guys so often exaggerate what I say? Isn't what I say good enough for you to disagree with?
About natural rights, I'd say this. The right to self protection is not necessarily the same as owning guns. You conflate those two ideas because that what fits your already determined idea of what you want.
Some of us feel the best way for people to protect themselves is exactly the opposite.
FWM and RuffRidr, I didn't say anything about blood running in the streets. I suggested there'll be an increase.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you guys so often exaggerate what I say?
Your side is famous for making wild exaggerations. The 'blood in the streets' line is the most famous. OK, then you merely suggested their will be an increase. There hasn't been for the last 20 years despite dire predictions from your side. When do you admit that you are wrong?
"The right to self protection is not necessarily the same as owning guns."
ReplyDeleteNope, we're not claiming that it is. What we're claiming is that the right to keep and bear arms is naturally a part of our ability to defend ourselves.
Face it, we're soft and squishy, with no real armor on our hides, and our only real weapon is our brain. Using our brains, we created tools, like spears, axes and knives. As tool making advanced, naturally so did the tools. Eventually, the personal arm became the short sword. Eventually, that was replaced with firearms. Someday, that might be replaced with Star Trek-type phasers. Those might be replaced with something else.
All of them (except the last couple) are within our ability to make, and all of them are personal arms, and all of them can be used for personal defense. Obviously, some are better suited for self defense than others, which is why the issue is always "guns."
If you accept natural rights, and accept that self defense is a natural right, and you can accept that human beings naturally are tool makers and tool users, how can you claim that the use of those tools doesn't fit?
"Some of us feel the best way for people to protect themselves is exactly the opposite."
And we feel it should be left up to us to protect ourselves as we see fit. We don't need or want a nanny standing over us protecting us from ourselves. We're big boys and girls now, and we can handle the responsibility.
MikeB: “Some of us feel the best way for people to protect themselves is exactly the opposite.”
ReplyDeleteAnd the best part is- no one makes you own a gun.
Jade, natural rights have nothing to do with a deity. Natural rights are what all (wo)men had in the state of nature, that is before organized governments. Anyone could do whatever he or she wished, but we have collectively decided to move out of said state of nature and give up some of that limitless freedom in order to form governments that would help protect us from the injurious actions of others (both individuals and other governments). Now we no longer have the right to do WHATEVER we want, but the intent of the formation of our particular government was to allow the individual to be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others. The 2nd Amendment merely makes it clear that the natural right of self defense wasn't given up in the creation of our government. The founders of our great nation recognized that there was no way to completely protect an individual from the criminal actions of others without seriously infringing on the freedoms that the country was founded to protect. Therefore, I am free to arm myself to defend my pursuit of life, liberty and happiness until the moment that I infringe on the rights of someone else (meaning a criminal act, not merely the possession of something in your vicinity of which you're unreasonably afraid). Out of necessity, we must retain the natural right to protect ourselves from harm, since the police have no responsibility to protect us as individuals, and the firearm is currently the best available means of doing so. Our governmental contract would be pretty useless if we were forced to give up our right to self-defense for no guarantee of safety from that government.
ReplyDeleteJadegold once again generously provides pure comedic gold:
ReplyDeleteLet us play with him a bit on the subject of natural rights.
If Anon believes there is such a thing as a natural right--why doesn't he tell us where it comes from?
Ah--classic! A person who is routinely outwitted by dung beetles apparently thinks he is wiser than John Locke, one of the most important philosophers in the last half millennium.
Thanks, Jade--you made my day. I'll be laughing about this for weeks.