Is it right for “officials” to maintain the right to keep and bear,
when we the people, their employers, cannot?
In this country, the people are the sovereigns and government is the servant.
It’s time to put force behind those words.
May issue carry
Shall issue carry
Right to Carry
Freedom to Carry
THE SECOND, SECOND AMENDMENT
Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative. So they go armed. It’s only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they’re both covered.
The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, “laws to the contrary notwithstanding.” That’s lawyer-speak for “their right to carry supersedes any other rules,” or in plainer English, “We’re above those laws.” The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I’m guessing Hillary does not.
There’s this whole “second system” of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating.
Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves from laws controlling the rest of us?
No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally deterred, even defensible if needed. Should we the people maybe have Diplomatic Carry too? Is a diplomat’s life truly at more risk — or worth more — than any “commoner”? How does this comply with equal protection under the law?
Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren’t going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the same as you and me when we’re armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if they come from regimes that don’t deserve it). We on the other hand have rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.
Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry.
The body politic moves slowly. After several decades of experience, police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of millions of people traveling armed. As the number of people carrying arms for crime control has increased, assaultive crimes have decreased. The media generally calls this “a surprising decrease in crime that has the experts baffled.” All these people are walking around armed, expressly to forestall crime, and the media can’t understand why crime has dropped. But I digress.
Oh sure, armed forces within the U.S. — from local police to secretive agents our government is now filled with — keep a watchful eye on the armed diplomats, as well they should. They also provide backup in the event of need. The same as for us.
But in the big picture, diplomats have less need for an ever-present armed escort than the public. A rare few diplomats face death at the hands of the mobs. Thousands of citizens are murdered each year. Who needs protection more?
The freedom of Diplomatic Carry, a concept many of us can easily grasp, is mind boggling to the great unwashed. So insulated from any truth about firearms, victims of television and the government-run school system, they have imbedded ignorance that is hard to shake. Destructively misinformed kids and teachers compound the problem. I digress again.
Now, Diplomatic Carry is not going to happen overnight. Many voices will be raised in objection to such freedom.
And unfortunately, some opposition will come from people who consider themselves firearms enthusiasts. Establishing everyone’s uninfringed freedom to carry is scary, at least to some. But that’s OK. Real freedom is a house high on a hill.
Diplomatic Carry is a paradigm shift. A window into a world that could be, and ought to be, a lofty goal. Your right to your life and its protection cannot morally be denied. It is denied only by force, and there is only one viable countermeasure to force unfortunately, in this best of all possible worlds, and that’s countervailing force. I don’t like it, but there it is.
Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal sovereignty. It raises the bar. In this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is the servant. How do you justify the servants carrying arms if the masters cannot?
The only consistent position for free people to take is this:
Anything short of Diplomatic Carry is infringement.