I read, with dismay, the Feb. 1 article in the Journal-World that there is a move in the Kansas Legislature to allow concealed weapons on college campuses. I’ve always been wary of the concealed carry law, but to expand it to college campuses seems a bit extreme to me. What’s next? Nursery schools? Day care?
I remember when concealed carry was passed, but I was totally in the dark until I read this article that it allowed people with vision disorders and physical disabilities to also carry a gun. A few years ago, I had major corrective ocular surgery. I think of myself before that and there was little chance that I could have used a concealed weapon effectively. At the least, I would have needed scattered birdshot, at best, a cluster bomb to ward off an assailant. I think the same limits would apply to anyone afflicted with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis or any other physical disability that restricts bodily movement and quick response to a dangerous situation. I question this section of the law, and the law itself, which does not consider the time of reaction for a disabled person to ward off an attacker and may bring greater danger to the disabled person.
When I moved to Kansas 22 years ago, I knew its residents to be straightforward, hard working, and with a broad streak of common sense. Now, it seems many have been duped and shoved aside by wild-eyed ultraconservatives, and pseudo Christians whose actions seem orchestrated by the Mad Hatter.
whose actions seem orchestrated by the Mad Hatter.
ReplyDeleteWow, and toss in loonies like the cart00ney LegalEagle45 who doesn't realise that most of the material he cites points to my version of reality.
Why can he admit that the Congress alone has power to arm the militia? He can read texts by Patrick Henry that say this power is rested solely in the hands of Congress and discredit his proposed "solution".
Yet, he says this is wrong.
Does he understand what he is reading?
He can admit there was discussion of standing armies and the militia is all over the Second Amendment, yet he wants to say these topics are irrelevant to Second Amendment history.
The Declaration specifically mentions as one of its grievances against George III:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
There is no mention of anything dealing with "gun rights" in that Document, yet LegalEagle wants us to believe that standing armies were not an issue during this period.
Where is the talk of private arms which LegalEagle says was so important?
Why all this talk about the militia and standing armies?
This letter to the editor was so poorly written that it was difficult to read, but let's note one thing: The author gives no evidence that there have been any problems with the law. He doesn't feel himself to be capable of using a firearm appropriately, so he believes that the state should restrict everyone's right to carry.
ReplyDeleteLaci, why don't you write articles on the subject that you wish to discuss, rather than tacking on irrelevant comments?