Tuesday, June 7, 2011

What part of "well-regulated militia" don't Republicans understand with "Constitutional carry?"?

Out of the Wausau Daily Harold this great commentary concerning Sen. Pam "guns" Galloway's ideologically driven constitutional carry legislation. 
The Wisconsin Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics opposes legislation that would permit the concealed carrying of firearms. "Concealed carry" doesn't deter crime. It sure didn't work for Rep. Giffords. Under Arizona law, her assailant was legally packing. And he wasn't brought down by gunfire from a "well-regulated militia" of armed citizens. No, he was stopped by a 61-year-old woman and two men, using their bare hands … emergency care at the scene was delayed because police didn't know who was carrying, and which of those might be part of the assassination attempt. 
Why is the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment never discussed? Probably because regulating would require setting standards, doing background checks, issuing permits and documenting ownership -- all the things we do now. All the things that are central to what "well-regulated" means. We regulate those who can impact our health and well-being: drivers, nurses, doctors, police, day-care workers. Even barbers and hairdressers. Why shouldn't a gun owner be as "well-regulated" as any of these?

And how many wouId-be pistoleros do you think will ever actually use their concealed handguns? How many will just be fantasizing about being heroes, shooting it out with the bad guys? And how many might someday feel challenged to prove themselves by drawing their weapons -- downtown, at Marathon Park, or on a bus? Without any training or experience? How safe does that make you feel? Adults. Playing with guns. Isn't that what we teach our kids not to do? Think about it.

Jeffrey H. Lamont, M.D., is president of the Wisconsin Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics. He lives in Wausau.

1 comment:

  1. Great title.

    Thank you to Dr. Lamont for an excellent statement.

    C&C is about deputizing someone to use deadly force in a surprise, tactical situation. That takes great physical condition, excellent eyesight and hearing, along with lots of regular TACTICAL training. Without warning, you have to pick out the CORRECT target (not a plain clothes police officer) and check your back ground. Law enforcement with years of training don't like those kinds of situations. The more liberal we are with C&C permits, the more it hurts the 2nd Amendment.

    ReplyDelete