Why Would You Carry Out of State?

So the gun grabbers are going into hysterics because the house passed HR-822.  My personal favorite quote was from none other than the founding case of Peterson Syndrome.

There were a lot of claims about concealed carry permit holders and the inconvenience of not being able to carry their guns into every state in the nation. I’ll tell them about inconvenience. My family was inconvenienced when we had to plan a funeral for my sister, shot to death on an August day. The inconvenience of sneaking to the back of the church in a rented bus to avoid the press shouldn’t have to be, but it was. It was inconvenient to watch my mother deal with the death of her first born child. It was inconvenient to watch my own children deal with the awful death of their favorite aunt. It was inconvenient to watch my sister’s grown kids and step children deal with each other and with their grief. So really, I just don’t feel sorry for these guys who can’t carry their guns everywhere they go. Do they care about victims? Are their gun rights more important than the public’s right to be safe from shootings of family members or friends? Are their rights to carry their guns more important than jobs, health care, housing, and other pressing needs? I believe that most Americans know the answer to this.

Emphasis mine.  I posted the whole quote so it was obvious I wasn’t twisting something out of context or the emotional state was completely lost.  Loosing a loved one is hard, but again, given her logic I’m a victim of cancer.  But then we find news articles such as this article.

By surviving his ordeal two weeks ago in Noble County, the victim, whose name authorities haven’t released, helped uncover an elaborate scheme by at least two men to lure people with the promise of work from across the country to Ohio. Authorities say the real plan was to rob and kill them.

The first victim was lured across state lines and was robbed and killed, the second victim was lucky enough to have survived.  However she thinks the victim in this case had no right to be armed for self-defense.  They had no right to be as equally armed as the criminals of the state of which they’re visiting.  As usual her pro-predator stance shines through like a light house.  Especially given the fact that she thinks that criminals should be allowed to retain firearms as they are necessary for their job.

Who needs guns then? Well, hunters need guns for the sport. Some people need guns for their profession- law enforcement, security guards, people who transport cash from businesses to banks, etc., gang members, drug cartels, felons, robbers and those who, without a gun, could not do their jobs.

She would rather disarm victims and ensure that they were easy prey for predators just because they crossed an invisible line in the sand that means nothing but a change in legal boundary.  As shown above can find prime examples of predators preying upon those from out of state due to the higher likelihood of the prey being disarmed.  National reciprocity guarantees those that can carry at home can continue to legally exercise their right to self-defense where ever they go*.

*It appears that the right to self-defense might be missing now in Massachusetts

Bookmark the permalink.

About TMM

TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms. Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.

Comments are closed.