Go On, Squeal: Anti-Gunners’ Purty Mouths Vs. National CCW Reciprocity
Of all the people who are shocked and upset that Donald Trump won the Presidential election, nobody is squealing louder than anti-gunners.
From the moment Kamala staggered offstage after delivering her concession speech, the nation’s anti-gunners have been in an absolute panic. It wasn’t just that America had elected Trump, a strongly pro-gun candidate. It was the fact that no matter how loudly the Left screamed about “gun violence,” Americans were simply ignoring them. Perhaps that’s because the vast, silent majority of Americans agree that if crime is up, we ought to start by focusing on the criminals.
As Second Amendment supporters, we also tend to believe that the 2A should be honored nationwide, and that if we qualify for a concealed carry license in our home state, we should qualify to carry our firearms legally in any state. If any of us were to get married in Hawaii, our marriage would be legal in every other state automatically, by default. Why should the Second Amendment, enshrined in the Constitution, get less respect than marriage?
Trump has signaled his willingness to sign national concealed-carry legislation if it’s put on his desk by Congress. And this is making the anti-gunners shriek like stuck pigs. Here’s a bit of country wisdom from my old gram-gram: “Throw a rock into a herd of pigs, and the one that squeals the loudest is the one you hit.” And speaking of loud squeals …
Thing is, it’s not just men. Not at all.
Donald Trump simply couldn’t have won the election without the support of women, too. More and more women are getting hip to the concept that in a criminal attack, seconds matter (and the cops are just minutes away). More women are taking their safety into their own hands by buying guns, learning how to use them, and then carrying those guns. The truth is that the Second Amendment is for everyone, regardless of their sex, race, color, creed, or taste in music. But, as the Citizens Committee for the Right to Bear Arms points out, anti-gunners are more interested in public disarmament than they have ever been in public safety:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A recent report by ABC News that gun control groups are vowing to ‘double down’ against incoming President Donald Trump if he pursues national concealed carry reciprocity only proves anti-gunners are more interested in citizen disarmament than in public safety, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.
‘National concealed carry reciprocity simply would mean American citizens would no longer leave their right of self-defense at a state border,’ said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. ‘The gun prohibition lobby needs to come clean and admit they don’t care if law-abiding citizens can’t defend themselves while traveling. They’re not interested in public safety, only public disarmament.’
A national reciprocity bill passed the U.S. House in 2017, but was never brought up in the Senate, and Democrats have opposed the idea. Now, however, with Capitol Hill under Republican control, and Trump on record as vowing to sign legislation if it hits his desk, anti-gunners—including Everytown for Gun Safety and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—are promising a fight to keep people traveling from one state to another vulnerable to criminal attack.
‘The gun ban crowd can couch their arguments any way they want,” Gottlieb observed, ‘but when you boil it down, what they really want is for good people to be vulnerable to violent crime. Anti-gunners argue that reciprocity will make it easier for criminals to cross state lines, but that doesn’t pass the smell test because criminals are already doing that.
‘Any notion that legally-armed Americans are somehow a threat to public safety when they journey to another state is manufactured paranoia,’ he said.
‘And,’ he added, ‘when armed citizens go to other states, they must obey that state’s gun laws. The argument that states will see their own gun laws eroded by reciprocity is yet another myth invented by anti-gunners to dissuade people from supporting reciprocity. Each state’s laws would remain intact, and they know it’.”
